Patient-Specific Segmentation-Based Treatment Planning vs. NovoTAL for TTFields Therapy in Glioblastoma.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023;
117:e87. [PMID:
37786202 DOI:
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.841]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)
Patients treated with Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) therapy for glioblastoma (GBM) have array layouts planned by NovoTAL. NovoTAL requires morphometric inputs and maximizes field intensity at the tumor. Patient-specific segmentation-based treatment planning (SBTP) software uses segmentation-based plans to maximize power density at defined regions of interest (ROIs). This technical analysis compared expected local minimum power density (LMiPD; mW/cm3) and local minimum field intensity (LMiFI; V/cm) delivered to ROIs with array layouts planned with SBTP vs NovoTAL. We hypothesized that SBTP has the potential to increase LMiPD and LMiFI to ROIs vs NovoTal.
MATERIALS/METHODS
37 patients from 5 sites who received TTFields therapy for GBM using NovoTAL were included. Treatment plans using the prescribed/treated NovoTAL layouts were created with SBTP. De novo SBTP layouts were also created. Three ROIs representing the original treated GBM (CTV), high risk margin around the GBM (CTV-2), and recurrent GBM (CTV-R) were created. Plans were optimized to CTV. SBTP vs NovoTAL LMiPD and LMiFI volumetrics to ROIs were evaluated. LMiPD and LMiFI were normalized with the delivered current from the treated NovoTAL layout. Layout rankings based on LMiPD and LMiFI, average LMiPD and LMiFI, D95, D5, DVHs, and voxel-by-voxel LMiPD and LMiFI for SBTP derived from NovoTAL layouts were compared to de novo SBTP layouts (paired t-tests).
RESULTS
Average LMiPD (1.551 vs 1.194) and LMiFI (1.115 vs 0.978) to CTV were significantly higher with SBTP vs NovoTAL (P < 0.0001 for each). Average LMiPD (1.445 vs 1.164) and LMiFI (1.197 vs 1.077) to CTV-2 were also higher (P < 0.0001 for each). There was a positive trend to higher average LMiPD (1.203 vs 1.157; P = 0.212) and LMiFI (1.103 vs 1.090; P = 0.311) to CTV-R. Top ranked overall layouts by LMiPD to CTV were SBTP layouts (97%; n = 36). Percent ratio ([SBTP-NovoTAL]/NovoTAL*100) D95 for LMiPD was 34% (to CTV), 24% (to CTV-2), and 5% (to CTV-R) and for LMiFI was 16%, 12%, and 2% respectively. Percent ratio D5 for LMiPD was 31%, 24%, and 3% and for LMiFI was 14%, 9%, and 0%, respectively. For a given percent CTV volume, minimum LMiPD and LMiFI were higher with SBTP (95%, n = 35; DVH curves shifted to right). SBTP yielded higher LMiPD and LMiFI to the majority of voxels within the CTV (95%, n = 35). With SBTP, LMiPD to CTV was significantly higher than to CTV-R (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
Overall, these data demonstrate that SBTP compared to NovoTAL yielded higher expected average LMiPD and LMiFI, D95, D5, and percent voxel LMiPD and LMiFI to defined ROIs. Higher LMiPD and LMiFI delivered to CTV vs CTV-R with SBTP suggests a benefit to re-planning if the GBM recurs. Given previous reports showing that higher LMiPD and LMiFI are positively correlated with improved overall and progression free survival, patient-specific SBTP may lead to improved clinical outcomes for GBM patients vs NovoTAL.
Collapse