Automated VMAT planning for postoperative adjuvant treatment of advanced gastric cancer

Abstract

BackgroundPostoperative/adjuvant radiotherapy of advanced gastric cancer involves a large planning target volume (PTV) with multi-concave shapes which presents a challenge for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning. This study investigates the advantages of automated VMAT planning for this site compared to manual VMAT planning by expert planners.MethodsFor 20 gastric cancer patients in the postoperative/adjuvant setting, dual-arc VMAT plans were generated using fully automated multi-criterial treatment planning (autoVMAT), and compared to manually generated VMAT plans (manVMAT). Both automated and manual plans were created to deliver a median dose of 45 Gy to the PTV using identical planning and segmentation parameters. Plans were evaluated by two expert radiation oncologists for clinical acceptability. AutoVMAT and manVMAT plans were also compared based on dose-volume histogram (DVH) and predicted normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) analysis.ResultsBoth manVMAT and autoVMAT plans were considered clinically acceptable. Target coverage was similar (manVMAT: 96.6 ± 1.6%, autoVMAT: 97.4 ± 1.0%, p = 0.085). With autoVMAT, median kidney dose was reduced on average by > 25%; (for left kidney from 11.3 ± 2.1 Gy to 8.9 ± 3.5 Gy (p = 0.002); for right kidney from 9.2 ± 2.2 Gy to 6.1 ± 1.3 Gy (p < 0.001)). Median dose to the liver was lower as well (18.8 ± 2.3 Gy vs. 17.1 ± 3.6 Gy, p = 0.048). In addition, Dmax of the spinal cord was significantly reduced (38.3 ± 3.7 Gy vs. 31.6 ± 2.6 Gy, p < 0.001). Substantial improvements in dose conformity and integral dose were achieved with autoVMAT plans (4.2% and 9.1%, respectively; p < 0.001). Due to the better OAR sparing in the autoVMAT plans compared to manVMAT plans, the predicted NTCPs for the left and right kidney and the liver-PTV were significantly reduced by 11.3%, 12.8%, 7%, respectively (p ≤ 0.001). Delivery time and total number of monitor units were increased in autoVMAT plans (from 168 ± 19 s to 207 ± 26 s, p = 0.006) and (from 781 ± 168 MU to 1001 ± 134 MU, p = 0.003), respectively.ConclusionsFor postoperative/adjuvant radiotherapy of advanced gastric cancer, involving a complex target shape, automated VMAT planning is feasible and can substantially reduce the dose to the kidneys and the liver, without compromising the target dose delivery.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13014-018-1032-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

First system for fully-automated multi-criterial treatment planning for a high-magnetic field MR-Linac applied to rectal cancer

“…Subsequently, the process has an intrinsic drive to beat the MANplan quality [12,13]. Many studies have demonstrated superiority of Erasmus-iCycle AUTOplans over MANplans generated with conventional trial-and-error planning [9,[14][15][16][17][18][19]. For clinical application at Erasmus MC, the system is used as a pre-optimizer for automated plan generation in the FDA-approved clinical TPS [9,[14][15][16][17][18][19].…”

Phase II Study of Capecitabine Combined With Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy After D1/D2 Lymph Node Dissection in Patients with Gastric Cancer

“…RT elds including or excluding the remnant stomach. Several studies have found that IMRT was superior to two-dimensional or three-dimensional RT, providing a more conformal and homogeneous dose to the PTV and accordingly minimizing the probability of toxicity [32][33][34].We had previously determined that tomotherapy is a better option for adjuvant treatment of gastric cancer due to its superior bowel and bone marrow dose sparing, dose conformity, and dose homogeneity [6,7,35,36]. Given these evidences, the present study showed acceptable safety and comparable compliance with the treatment course.…”

Automatic VMAT planning for post-operative prostate cancer cases using particle swarm optimization: A proof of concept study

“…Thus, RT planning is often a time consuming trial and error process, which is not reproducible and its success depends highly on the planner's experience. Automation of the planning process may overcome those problems and therefore automatic treatment planning gained attention in recent years [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. In principle, three major conceptual approaches have been proposed for automatic RT planning in the last years.…”