Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 23, 2025
Proton Therapy Delivery and Its Clinical Application in Select Solid Tumor Malignancies
Published on: February 6, 2019
Direct-to-Treatment Adaptive Radiation Therapy: Live Planning of Spine Metastases Using Novel Cone Beam Computed
K Maiti McGrath1, Robert Lee MacDonald2, James L Robar2
1Department of Radiation Oncology, QE2 Cancer Centre, Nova Scotia Health, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Purpose:
Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based online adaptive radiation therapy is carried out using a synthetic CT (sCT) created through deformable registration between the patient-specific fan-beam CT, fan-beam computed tomography (FBCT), and daily CBCT. Ethos 2.0 allows for plan calculation directly on HyperSight CBCT and uses artificial intelligence-informed tools for daily contouring without the use of a priori information. This breaks an important link between daily adaptive sessions and initial reference plan preparation. This study explores adaptive radiation therapy for spine metastases without prior patient-specific imaging or treatment planning. We hypothesize that adaptive plans can be created when patient-specific positioning and anatomy is incorporated only once the patient has arrived at the treatment unit.
Methods And Materials:
An Ethos 2.0 emulator was used to create initial reference plans on 10 patient-specific FBCTs. Reference plans were also created using FBCTs of (1) a library patient with clinically acceptable contours and (2) a water-equivalent phantom with placeholder contours. Adaptive sessions were simulated for each patient using the 3 different starting points. Resulting adaptive plans were compared with determine the significance of patient-specific information prior to the start of treatment.
Results:
The library patient and phantom reference plans did not generate adaptive plans that differed significantly from the standard workflow for all clinical constraints for target coverage and organ at risk sparing (P > .2). Gamma comparison between the 3 adaptive plans for each patient (3%/3 mm) demonstrated overall similarity of dose distributions (pass rate > 95%), for all but 2 cases. Failures occurred mainly in low-dose regions, highlighting difference in fluence used to achieve the same clinical goals.
Conclusions:
This study confirmed feasibility of a procedure for treatment of spine metastases that does not rely on previously acquired patient-specific imaging, contours or plan. Reference-free direct-to-treatment workflows are possible and can condense a multistep process to a single location with dedicated resources.
