Automatic Radiotherapy Planning for Glioblastoma Radiotherapy With Sparing of the Hippocampus and nTMS-Defined Motor Cortex.
Auto-Planning
glioblastoma
hippocampus
navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS)
radiotherapy
Journal
Frontiers in neurology
ISSN: 1664-2295
Titre abrégé: Front Neurol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101546899
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
15
10
2021
accepted:
06
12
2021
entrez:
31
1
2022
pubmed:
1
2
2022
medline:
1
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) of the motor cortex has been successfully implemented into radiotherapy planning by a number of studies. Furthermore, the hippocampus has been identified as a radiation-sensitive structure meriting particular sparing in radiotherapy. This study assesses the joint protection of these two eloquent brain regions for the treatment of glioblastoma (GBM), with particular emphasis on the use of automatic planning. Patients with motor-eloquent brain glioblastoma who underwent surgical resection after nTMS mapping of the motor cortex and adjuvant radiotherapy were retrospectively evaluated. The radiotherapy treatment plans were retrieved, and the nTMS-defined motor cortex and hippocampus contours were added. Four additional treatment plans were created for each patient: two manual plans aimed to reduce the dose to the motor cortex and hippocampus by manual inverse planning. The second pair of re-optimized plans was created by the Auto-Planning algorithm. The optimized plans were compared with the "Original" plan regarding plan quality, planning target volume (PTV) coverage, and sparing of organs at risk (OAR). A total of 50 plans were analyzed. All plans were clinically acceptable with no differences in the PTV coverage and plan quality metrics. The OARs were preserved in all plans; however, overall the sparing was significantly improved by Auto-Planning. Motor cortex protection was feasible and significant, amounting to a reduction in the mean dose by >6 Gy. The dose to the motor cortex outside the PTV was reduced by >12 Gy (mean dose) and >5 Gy (maximum dose). The hippocampi were significantly improved (reduction in mean dose: ipsilateral >6 Gy, contralateral >4.6 Gy; reduction in maximum dose: ipsilateral >5 Gy, contralateral >5 Gy). While the dose reduction using Auto-Planning was generally better than by manual optimization, the radiated total monitor units were significantly increased. Considerable dose sparing of the nTMS-motor cortex and hippocampus could be achieved with no disadvantages in plan quality. Auto-Planning could further contribute to better protection of OAR. Whether the improved dosimetric protection of functional areas can translate into improved quality of life and motor or cognitive performance of the patients can only be decided by future studies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) of the motor cortex has been successfully implemented into radiotherapy planning by a number of studies. Furthermore, the hippocampus has been identified as a radiation-sensitive structure meriting particular sparing in radiotherapy. This study assesses the joint protection of these two eloquent brain regions for the treatment of glioblastoma (GBM), with particular emphasis on the use of automatic planning.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
METHODS
Patients with motor-eloquent brain glioblastoma who underwent surgical resection after nTMS mapping of the motor cortex and adjuvant radiotherapy were retrospectively evaluated. The radiotherapy treatment plans were retrieved, and the nTMS-defined motor cortex and hippocampus contours were added. Four additional treatment plans were created for each patient: two manual plans aimed to reduce the dose to the motor cortex and hippocampus by manual inverse planning. The second pair of re-optimized plans was created by the Auto-Planning algorithm. The optimized plans were compared with the "Original" plan regarding plan quality, planning target volume (PTV) coverage, and sparing of organs at risk (OAR).
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 50 plans were analyzed. All plans were clinically acceptable with no differences in the PTV coverage and plan quality metrics. The OARs were preserved in all plans; however, overall the sparing was significantly improved by Auto-Planning. Motor cortex protection was feasible and significant, amounting to a reduction in the mean dose by >6 Gy. The dose to the motor cortex outside the PTV was reduced by >12 Gy (mean dose) and >5 Gy (maximum dose). The hippocampi were significantly improved (reduction in mean dose: ipsilateral >6 Gy, contralateral >4.6 Gy; reduction in maximum dose: ipsilateral >5 Gy, contralateral >5 Gy). While the dose reduction using Auto-Planning was generally better than by manual optimization, the radiated total monitor units were significantly increased.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Considerable dose sparing of the nTMS-motor cortex and hippocampus could be achieved with no disadvantages in plan quality. Auto-Planning could further contribute to better protection of OAR. Whether the improved dosimetric protection of functional areas can translate into improved quality of life and motor or cognitive performance of the patients can only be decided by future studies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35095732
doi: 10.3389/fneur.2021.787140
pmc: PMC8795623
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
787140Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Schuermann, Dzierma, Nuesken, Oertel, Rübe and Melchior.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
J Neurosurg. 2000 Dec;93 Suppl 3:219-22
pubmed: 11143252
Front Oncol. 2021 Feb 26;11:628007
pubmed: 33718201
Neuro Oncol. 2014 Oct;16(10):1365-72
pubmed: 24923875
Clin Anat. 2016 Oct;29(7):925-31
pubmed: 27501333
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Jan 20;13(3):
pubmed: 33498403
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Apr 1;97(5):910-918
pubmed: 28333012
Neurosurgery. 2009 Dec;65(6 Suppl):93-8; discussion 98-9
pubmed: 19935007
J Clin Neurophysiol. 2020 Jan;37(1):50-55
pubmed: 31335563
Cancer. 2019 Sep 1;125(17):3050-3058
pubmed: 31231797
Innov Clin Neurosci. 2018 Feb 1;15(1-2):36-44
pubmed: 29497579
Radiat Oncol. 2018 Feb 20;13(1):29
pubmed: 29463267
Radiat Oncol. 2015 Dec 10;10:253
pubmed: 26654128
Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2018 Jan 1;17:1533033818780064
pubmed: 29909735
Neurosurg Focus. 2013 Apr;34(4):E5
pubmed: 23544411
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Feb 1;85(2):348-54
pubmed: 23312272
Neurology. 2013 Feb 19;80(8):747-53
pubmed: 23390169
Radiat Oncol. 2011 May 15;6:48
pubmed: 21575163
Radiother Oncol. 2015 Feb;114(2):230-8
pubmed: 25701297
Neurosurg Focus. 2019 Dec 1;47(6):E10
pubmed: 31786549
Radiother Oncol. 2018 Jul;128(1):37-43
pubmed: 29548560
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2019 May;180:7-17
pubmed: 30870762
Adv Radiat Oncol. 2017 Aug 30;2(4):624-629
pubmed: 29204530
Clin Cancer Res. 2013 May 1;19(9):2294-300
pubmed: 23388505
Surg Neurol Int. 2020 Feb 28;11:29
pubmed: 32257555
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Dec 1;32(34):3810-6
pubmed: 25349290
Neuro Oncol. 2013 Mar;15(3):360-9
pubmed: 23322748
J Neurooncol. 2016 Feb;126(3):535-43
pubmed: 26566653
Strahlenther Onkol. 2017 Dec;193(12):1031-1038
pubmed: 28770294
Acta Oncol. 2017 Nov;56(11):1495-1500
pubmed: 28840767
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Nov 15;99(4):1021-1028
pubmed: 28870791
J Neurosurg. 2006 Dec;105 Suppl:194-201
pubmed: 18503356
Radiother Oncol. 2010 Dec;97(3):370-6
pubmed: 20970214
Am J Clin Oncol. 2015 Dec;38(6):634-40
pubmed: 25503433
Radiother Oncol. 2017 Nov;125(2):234-240
pubmed: 29128167
Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2016 Sep 19;1:2-8
pubmed: 29657987
Neuro Oncol. 2021 Aug 2;23(8):1393-1403
pubmed: 33543265
Front Oncol. 2012 Jul 19;2:73
pubmed: 22833841
Neurosurgery. 2011 Sep;69(3):581-8; discussion 588
pubmed: 21430587
Radiother Oncol. 2019 Sep;138:30-37
pubmed: 31136960
J Neurooncol. 2019 Sep;144(2):351-358
pubmed: 31302830
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993 Dec 1;27(5):1231-9
pubmed: 8262852
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2014 Jun;156(6):1125-33
pubmed: 24744010
Br J Radiol. 2018 Dec;91(1092):20180270
pubmed: 30074813
Neuro Oncol. 2014 Sep;16(9):1274-82
pubmed: 24516237
BMC Cancer. 2015 Apr 08;15:231
pubmed: 25884404
Front Oncol. 2018 Oct 02;8:424
pubmed: 30333959
Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res. 2016 Oct - Dec;770(Pt B):219-230
pubmed: 27919332
Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2020 Nov 15;26:35-41
pubmed: 33294645
Neurooncol Adv. 2020 May 21;2(1):vdaa060
pubmed: 32642712
Neurosurgery. 2021 Feb 16;88(3):627-636
pubmed: 33289507