1
|
Groot Koerkamp ML, Bol GH, Kroon PS, Krikke LL, Harderwijk T, Zoetelief AJ, Scheeren A, van der Vegt S, Plat A, Hes J, van Gasteren IB, Renders ER, Rutgers RH, Kok SW, van Kaam J, Schimmel-de Kogel GJ, Sikkes GG, Winkel D, van Rijssel MJ, Wopereis AJ, Ishakoglu K, Noteboom JL, van der Voort van Zyp JR, Beck N, Soeterik TF, van de Pol SM, Eppinga WS, van Es CA, Raaymakers BW. Bringing online adaptive radiotherapy to a standard C-arm linac. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2024; 31:100597. [PMID: 39006756 PMCID: PMC11239695 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2024.100597] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2024] [Revised: 05/28/2024] [Accepted: 05/29/2024] [Indexed: 07/16/2024] Open
Abstract
Current online adaptive radiotherapy (oART) workflows require dedicated equipment. Our aim was to develop and implement an oART workflow for a C-arm linac which can be performed using standard clinically available tools. A workflow was successfully developed and implemented. Three patients receiving palliative radiotherapy for bladder cancer were treated, with 33 of 35 total fractions being delivered with the cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-guided oART workflow. Average oART fraction duration was 24 min from start of CBCT acquisition to end of beam on. This work shows how oART could be performed without dedicated equipment, broadening oART availability for application at existing treatment machines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Gijsbert H. Bol
- Department of Radiotherapy, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Petra S. Kroon
- Department of Radiotherapy, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Lean L. Krikke
- Department of Radiotherapy, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Tessa Harderwijk
- Department of Radiotherapy, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Annelies J. Zoetelief
- Department of Radiotherapy, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Annick Scheeren
- Department of Radiotherapy, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Stefan van der Vegt
- Department of Radiotherapy, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Annika Plat
- Department of Radiotherapy, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Jochem Hes
- Department of Radiotherapy, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Ineke B.A. van Gasteren
- Department of Radiotherapy, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Esmee R.T. Renders
- Department of Radiotherapy, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Reijer H.A. Rutgers
- Department of Radiotherapy, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Saskia W. Kok
- Department of Radiotherapy, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Joost van Kaam
- Department of Radiotherapy, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | | | - Gonda G. Sikkes
- Department of Radiotherapy, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Dennis Winkel
- Department of Radiotherapy, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Michael J. van Rijssel
- Department of Radiotherapy, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - André J.M. Wopereis
- Department of Radiotherapy, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Kübra Ishakoglu
- Department of Radiotherapy, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Juus L. Noteboom
- Department of Radiotherapy, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | | | - Naomi Beck
- Department of Radiotherapy, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Timo F.W. Soeterik
- Department of Radiotherapy, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | | | - Wietse S.C. Eppinga
- Department of Radiotherapy, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Corine A. van Es
- Department of Radiotherapy, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Bas W. Raaymakers
- Department of Radiotherapy, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Azzarouali S, Goudschaal K, Visser J, Hulshof M, Admiraal M, van Wieringen N, Nieuwenhuijzen J, Wiersma J, Daniëls L, den Boer D, Bel A. Online adaptive radiotherapy for bladder cancer using a simultaneous integrated boost and fiducial markers. Radiat Oncol 2023; 18:165. [PMID: 37803392 PMCID: PMC10557331 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-023-02348-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/12/2023] [Accepted: 09/10/2023] [Indexed: 10/08/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The aim was to assess the feasibility of online adaptive radiotherapy (oART) for bladder cancer using a focal boost by focusing on the quality of the online treatment plan and automatic target delineation, duration of the workflow and performance in the presence of fiducial markers for tumor bed localization. METHODS Fifteen patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer received daily oART with Cone Beam CT (CBCT), artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted automatic delineation of the daily anatomy and online plan reoptimization. The bladder and pelvic lymph nodes received a total dose of 40 Gy in 20 fractions, the tumor received an additional simultaneously integrated boost (SIB) of 15 Gy. The dose distribution of the reference plan was calculated for the daily anatomy, i.e. the scheduled plan. Simultaneously, a reoptimization of the plan was performed i.e. the adaptive plan. The target coverage and V95% outside the target were evaluated for both plans. The need for manual adjustments of the GTV delineation, the duration of the workflow and the influence of fiducial markers were assessed. RESULTS All 300 adaptive plans met the requirement of the CTV-coverage V95%≥98% for both the boost (55 Gy) and elective volume (40 Gy). For the scheduled plans the CTV-coverage was 53.5% and 98.5%, respectively. Significantly less tissue outside the targets received 55 Gy in case of the adaptive plans as compared to the scheduled plans. Manual corrections of the GTV were performed in 67% of the sessions. In 96% of these corrections the GTV was enlarged and resulted in a median improvement of 1% for the target coverage. The median on-couch time was 22 min. A third of the session time consisted of reoptimization of the treatment plan. Fiducial markers were visible on the CBCTs and aided the tumor localization. CONCLUSIONS AI-driven CBCT-guided oART aided by fiducial markers is feasible for bladder cancer radiotherapy treatment including a SIB. The quality of the adaptive plans met the clinical requirements and fiducial markers were visible enabling consistent daily tumor localization. Improved automatic delineation to lower the need for manual corrections and faster reoptimization would result in shorter session time.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sana Azzarouali
- Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Therapy, Treatment and quality of life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Karin Goudschaal
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Therapy, Treatment and quality of life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jorrit Visser
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Therapy, Treatment and quality of life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Maarten Hulshof
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Therapy, Treatment and quality of life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marjan Admiraal
- Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Therapy, Treatment and quality of life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Niek van Wieringen
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Therapy, Treatment and quality of life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jakko Nieuwenhuijzen
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Therapy, Treatment and quality of life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Urology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jan Wiersma
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Therapy, Treatment and quality of life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Laurien Daniëls
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Therapy, Treatment and quality of life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Duncan den Boer
- Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Therapy, Treatment and quality of life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Arjan Bel
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Therapy, Treatment and quality of life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Chargari C, Tanderup K, Planchamp F, Chiva L, Humphrey P, Sturdza A, Tan LT, van der Steen-Banasik E, Zapardiel I, Nout RA, Fotopoulou C. ESGO/ESTRO quality indicators for radiation therapy of cervical cancer. Radiother Oncol 2023; 183:109589. [PMID: 37268359 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109589] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/28/2022] [Accepted: 01/11/2023] [Indexed: 06/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) has previously defined and established a list of quality indicators for the surgical treatment of cervical cancer. As a continuation of this effort to improve overall quality of care for cervical cancer patients across all aspects, ESGO and the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) initiated the development of quality indicators for radiation therapy of cervical cancer. OBJECTIVE To develop a list of quality indicators for radiation therapy of cervical cancer that can be used to audit and improve clinical practice by giving to practitioners and administrators a quantitative basis to improve care and organizational processes, notably for recognition of the increased complexity of modern external radiotherapy and brachytherapy techniques. METHODS Quality indicators were based on scientific evidence and/or expert consensus. The development process included a systematic literature search for identification of potential quality indicators and documentation of scientific evidence, consensus meetings of a group of international experts, an internal validation process, and external review by a large international panel of clinicians (n = 99). RESULTS Using a structured format, each quality indicator has a description specifying what the indicator is measuring. Measurability specifications are detailed to define how the quality indicators will be measured in practice. Targets were also defined for specifying the level which each unit or center should be aiming to achieve. Nineteen structural, process, and outcome indicators were defined. Quality indicators 1-6 are general requirements related to pretreatment workup, time to treatment, upfront radiation therapy, and overall management, including active participation in clinical research and the decision making process within a structured multidisciplinary team. Quality indicators 7-17 are related to treatment indicators. Quality indicators 18 and 19 are related to patient outcomes. DISCUSSION This set of quality indicators is a major instrument to standardize the quality of radiation therapy in cervical cancer. A scoring system combining surgical and radiotherapeutic quality indicators will be developed within an envisaged future ESGO accreditation process for the overall management of cervical cancer, in an effort to support institutional and governmental quality assurance programs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Luis Chiva
- Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - Pauline Humphrey
- University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Alina Sturdza
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Christian Doppler Laboratory for Medical Radiation Research for Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Wien, Austria
| | - Li T Tan
- Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK
| | | | | | - Remi A Nout
- Radiotherapy, Erasmus MC Cancer Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Chargari C, Tanderup K, Planchamp F, Chiva L, Humphrey P, Sturdza A, Tan LT, van der Steen-Banasik E, Zapardiel I, Nout RA, Fotopoulou C. ESGO/ESTRO quality indicators for radiation therapy of cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2023:ijgc-2022-004180. [PMID: 37258414 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2022-004180] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/02/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) has previously defined and established a list of quality indicators for the surgical treatment of cervical cancer. As a continuation of this effort to improve overall quality of care for cervical cancer patients across all aspects, ESGO and the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) initiated the development of quality indicators for radiation therapy of cervical cancer. OBJECTIVE To develop a list of quality indicators for radiation therapy of cervical cancer that can be used to audit and improve clinical practice by giving to practitioners and administrators a quantitative basis to improve care and organizational processes, notably for recognition of the increased complexity of modern external radiotherapy and brachytherapy techniques. METHODS Quality indicators were based on scientific evidence and/or expert consensus. The development process included a systematic literature search for identification of potential quality indicators and documentation of scientific evidence, consensus meetings of a group of international experts, an internal validation process, and external review by a large international panel of clinicians (n=99). RESULTS Using a structured format, each quality indicator has a description specifying what the indicator is measuring. Measurability specifications are detailed to define how the quality indicators will be measured in practice. Targets were also defined for specifying the level which each unit or center should be aiming to achieve. Nineteen structural, process, and outcome indicators were defined. Quality indicators 1-6 are general requirements related to pretreatment workup, time to treatment, upfront radiation therapy, and overall management, including active participation in clinical research and the decision making process within a structured multidisciplinary team. Quality indicators 7-17 are related to treatment indicators. Quality indicators 18 and 19 are related to patient outcomes. DISCUSSION This set of quality indicators is a major instrument to standardize the quality of radiation therapy in cervical cancer. A scoring system combining surgical and radiotherapeutic quality indicators will be developed within an envisaged future ESGO accreditation process for the overall management of cervical cancer, in an effort to support institutional and governmental quality assurance programs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Luis Chiva
- Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - Pauline Humphrey
- University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Alina Sturdza
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Christian Doppler Laboratory for Medical Radiation Research for Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Wien, Austria
| | - Li T Tan
- Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK
| | | | | | - Remi A Nout
- Radiotherapy, Erasmus MC Cancer Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
MRI-guided Radiotherapy (MRgRT) for treatment of Oligometastases: Review of clinical applications and challenges. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022; 114:950-967. [PMID: 35901978 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.07.027] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2022] [Revised: 07/18/2022] [Accepted: 07/19/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Early clinical results on the application of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) coupled with a linear accelerator to deliver MR-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) have demonstrated feasibility for safe delivery of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in treatment of oligometastatic disease. Here we set out to review the clinical evidence and challenges associated with MRgRT in this setting. METHODS AND MATERIALS We performed a systematic review of the literature pertaining to clinical experiences and trials on the use of MRgRT primarily for the treatment of oligometastatic cancers. We reviewed the opportunities and challenges associated with the use of MRgRT. RESULTS Benefits of MRgRT pertaining to superior soft-tissue contrast, real-time imaging and gating, and online adaptive radiotherapy facilitate safe and effective dose escalation to oligometastatic tumors while simultaneously sparing surrounding healthy tissues. Challenges concerning further need for clinical evidence and technical considerations related to planning, delivery, quality assurance (QA) of hypofractionated doses, and safety in the MRI environment must be considered. CONCLUSIONS The promising early indications of safety and effectiveness of MRgRT for SBRT-based treatment of oligometastatic disease in multiple treatment locations should lead to further clinical evidence to demonstrate the benefit of this technology.
Collapse
|