GPP02 Presentation Time: 10:39 AM

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q4 ONCOLOGY
Linda Rossi PhD, Rik Bijman PhD, Henrike Westerveld MD, PhD, Miranda Christianen MD, Lorne Luthart RTT, Michele Huge RTT, Inger-Karine Kolkman-Deurloo PhD, Jan-Willem Mens MD, Huda Abusaris MD, Raymond de Boer MD, Sebastiaan Breedveld PhD, Ben Heijmen (Prof), Remi Nout MD (Prof)
{"title":"GPP02 Presentation Time: 10:39 AM","authors":"Linda Rossi PhD,&nbsp;Rik Bijman PhD,&nbsp;Henrike Westerveld MD, PhD,&nbsp;Miranda Christianen MD,&nbsp;Lorne Luthart RTT,&nbsp;Michele Huge RTT,&nbsp;Inger-Karine Kolkman-Deurloo PhD,&nbsp;Jan-Willem Mens MD,&nbsp;Huda Abusaris MD,&nbsp;Raymond de Boer MD,&nbsp;Sebastiaan Breedveld PhD,&nbsp;Ben Heijmen (Prof),&nbsp;Remi Nout MD (Prof)","doi":"10.1016/j.brachy.2024.08.088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Fully automated adaptive treatment planning for image-guided cervical cancer brachytherapy following EMBRACE II planning aims, using ‘BiCycle’, was recently been developed. Favorable results were achieved in retrospective research studies [Oud et al., Radiother Oncol 148:143, 2020; Bijman et al., Radiother Oncol 170(S390), 2022; Rossi et al. Radiother Oncol 182(S92), 2023]. In this study, BiCycle was implemented parallel to the clinical routine to prospectively evaluate its impact on plan quality and workload. Dosimetrical parameters and planning times were prospectively collected as well as subjective plan scoring by five of the six clinicians performing cervical cancer brachytherapy.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><div>Between June 2022 and January 2023, max. 2 patients per week were included, if compatible with clinical workload. Each patient was treated with an intracavitary applicator with interstitial needles, using a manually generated plan, without modifying clinical practice. Manual plan generation was performed by an RTT in Oncentra-Brachy (OCB) (Elekta) followed by a manual plan adjustment togehter with the treating physician (if desired), leading to a Man_Adj plan used for delivery. After treatment, an automated plan was generated using BiCycle aiming at the same CTVHR D90% as in the Man_Adj plan (Auto plan generation). The plan was then imported into OCB and evaluated, and optionally adjusted without access to the Man_Adj plan by the same treating physician who also evaluated and adjusted the manual plan, resulting in an Auto_Adj plan. Next, the treating physician compared Auto_Adj and Man_Adj plans using Visual Analogue Scales (VAS) for i) overall plan quality, ii) target structures doses only, iii) OARs doses only and iv) loading pattern only. For each VAS, the clinician first selected the favorable plan and then expressed the importance of superiority using a 0-100 scale. Both for manual planning and autoplanning, times needed to generate and adjust the plan were recorded.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Data of 41 fraction plans were included, resulting in 37 evaluable plans due to 3 not evaluated in time, and 1 missing informed consent. Auto_Adj plans resulted in superior plan quality compared to Man_Adj in almost all aspects. While CTVHR D90% and GTVRES D98% improved by 0.3 and 1.7 Gy, respectively, CTVIR D98% decreased by 1.3 Gy, while always remaining within constraints (results expressed in total EBRT+BT EQD2Gy doses). Auto_Adj reduced bladder, rectum, sigmoid and bowel D2cc by on average by 3.7, 3.0, 1.0, 1.4 Gy, respectively. Treating physicians expressed an overall preference for Auto_Adj, which was preferred in 28, 17, 30 and 7 plans out of 37 for VAS overall, CTV, OARs and loading pattern respectively, while Man_Adj was preferred in 2, 1, 2 and 9 plans respectively. Planning+adjustment times significantly reduced with automated planning for all fractions (Figure 1), with a reduction in average times from 44.1 minutes (23.2 min plan generation + 22.8 min plan adjustment) to 9.4 minutes (5.3 min plan generation + 4.0 min plan adjustment).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The automated treatment planning workflow for cervical cancer brachytherapy, BiCycle, was validated parallel to clinical practice, meeting high dosimetrical quality and physician preference while reducing total planning time from 44.1 min to 9.4 min. The system has been released in clinical practice fulfilling EU Medical Device Regulation (MDR) requirements.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55334,"journal":{"name":"Brachytherapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brachytherapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1538472124002241","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Fully automated adaptive treatment planning for image-guided cervical cancer brachytherapy following EMBRACE II planning aims, using ‘BiCycle’, was recently been developed. Favorable results were achieved in retrospective research studies [Oud et al., Radiother Oncol 148:143, 2020; Bijman et al., Radiother Oncol 170(S390), 2022; Rossi et al. Radiother Oncol 182(S92), 2023]. In this study, BiCycle was implemented parallel to the clinical routine to prospectively evaluate its impact on plan quality and workload. Dosimetrical parameters and planning times were prospectively collected as well as subjective plan scoring by five of the six clinicians performing cervical cancer brachytherapy.

Materials and Methods

Between June 2022 and January 2023, max. 2 patients per week were included, if compatible with clinical workload. Each patient was treated with an intracavitary applicator with interstitial needles, using a manually generated plan, without modifying clinical practice. Manual plan generation was performed by an RTT in Oncentra-Brachy (OCB) (Elekta) followed by a manual plan adjustment togehter with the treating physician (if desired), leading to a Man_Adj plan used for delivery. After treatment, an automated plan was generated using BiCycle aiming at the same CTVHR D90% as in the Man_Adj plan (Auto plan generation). The plan was then imported into OCB and evaluated, and optionally adjusted without access to the Man_Adj plan by the same treating physician who also evaluated and adjusted the manual plan, resulting in an Auto_Adj plan. Next, the treating physician compared Auto_Adj and Man_Adj plans using Visual Analogue Scales (VAS) for i) overall plan quality, ii) target structures doses only, iii) OARs doses only and iv) loading pattern only. For each VAS, the clinician first selected the favorable plan and then expressed the importance of superiority using a 0-100 scale. Both for manual planning and autoplanning, times needed to generate and adjust the plan were recorded.

Results

Data of 41 fraction plans were included, resulting in 37 evaluable plans due to 3 not evaluated in time, and 1 missing informed consent. Auto_Adj plans resulted in superior plan quality compared to Man_Adj in almost all aspects. While CTVHR D90% and GTVRES D98% improved by 0.3 and 1.7 Gy, respectively, CTVIR D98% decreased by 1.3 Gy, while always remaining within constraints (results expressed in total EBRT+BT EQD2Gy doses). Auto_Adj reduced bladder, rectum, sigmoid and bowel D2cc by on average by 3.7, 3.0, 1.0, 1.4 Gy, respectively. Treating physicians expressed an overall preference for Auto_Adj, which was preferred in 28, 17, 30 and 7 plans out of 37 for VAS overall, CTV, OARs and loading pattern respectively, while Man_Adj was preferred in 2, 1, 2 and 9 plans respectively. Planning+adjustment times significantly reduced with automated planning for all fractions (Figure 1), with a reduction in average times from 44.1 minutes (23.2 min plan generation + 22.8 min plan adjustment) to 9.4 minutes (5.3 min plan generation + 4.0 min plan adjustment).

Conclusion

The automated treatment planning workflow for cervical cancer brachytherapy, BiCycle, was validated parallel to clinical practice, meeting high dosimetrical quality and physician preference while reducing total planning time from 44.1 min to 9.4 min. The system has been released in clinical practice fulfilling EU Medical Device Regulation (MDR) requirements.
GPP02 演讲时间:上午 10:39
目的最近根据 EMBRACE II 计划目标,利用 "BiCycle "开发了图像引导下宫颈癌近距离治疗的全自动自适应治疗计划。在回顾性研究中取得了良好的效果[Oud等人,Radiother Oncol 148:143,2020;Bijman等人,Radiother Oncol 170(S390),2022;Rossi等人,Radiother Oncol 182(S92),2023]。在本研究中,BiCycle 与临床常规同时实施,以前瞻性地评估其对计划质量和工作量的影响。在 2022 年 6 月至 2023 年 1 月期间,每周最多纳入 2 名患者,如果患者在治疗过程中接受了放射治疗,则每周最多纳入 2 名患者,如果患者在治疗过程中接受了放射治疗,则每周最多纳入 2 名患者。在符合临床工作量的情况下,每周最多纳入 2 名患者。在不改变临床实践的情况下,使用手动生成的计划,对每位患者进行带有间质针的腔内治疗。手动计划由Oncentra-Brachy (OCB) (Elekta)的RTT生成,然后与主治医生一起进行手动计划调整(如果需要的话),最终形成用于给药的Man_Adj计划。治疗结束后,使用 BiCycle 生成自动计划,目标是与 Man_Adj 计划相同的 CTVHR D90%(自动计划生成)。然后,将该计划导入 OCB 并进行评估,并在无法访问 Man_Adj 计划的情况下,由评估和调整手动计划的同一位主治医生进行选择性调整,最终生成自动计划。接下来,主治医生使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)对 Auto_Adj 和 Man_Adj 计划进行比较,包括 i) 总体计划质量;ii) 仅目标结构剂量;iii) 仅 OARs 剂量;iv) 仅加载模式。对于每项 VAS,临床医生首先选择有利的计划,然后用 0-100 分表示优越性的重要性。结果共纳入了 41 个分数计划的数据,由于 3 个计划未及时评估,以及 1 个计划缺少知情同意书,因此可评估的计划为 37 个。在几乎所有方面,Auto_Adj 计划的计划质量都优于 Man_Adj。CTVHR D90% 和 GTVRES D98% 分别提高了 0.3 Gy 和 1.7 Gy,而 CTVIR D98% 则降低了 1.3 Gy,同时始终保持在限制范围内(结果以 EBRT+BT EQD2Gy 总剂量表示)。Auto_Adj 可使膀胱、直肠、乙状结肠和肠道的 D2cc 分别平均减少 3.7、3.0、1.0 和 1.4 Gy。主治医生对 Auto_Adj 表示总体偏好,在 37 个计划中,分别有 28、17、30 和 7 个计划在 VAS 总体、CTV、OARs 和加载模式方面偏好 Aut_Adj,而 Man_Adj 则分别有 2、1、2 和 9 个计划偏好。所有分段的计划+调整时间都在自动计划后显著缩短(图 1),平均时间从 44.1 分钟(23.2 分钟计划生成+22.8 分钟计划调整)缩短到 9.4 分钟(5.3 分钟计划生成+4.0 分钟计划调整)。该系统已投入临床实践,符合欧盟医疗器械法规 (MDR) 的要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Brachytherapy
Brachytherapy 医学-核医学
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
21.10%
发文量
119
审稿时长
9.1 weeks
期刊介绍: Brachytherapy is an international and multidisciplinary journal that publishes original peer-reviewed articles and selected reviews on the techniques and clinical applications of interstitial and intracavitary radiation in the management of cancers. Laboratory and experimental research relevant to clinical practice is also included. Related disciplines include medical physics, medical oncology, and radiation oncology and radiology. Brachytherapy publishes technical advances, original articles, reviews, and point/counterpoint on controversial issues. Original articles that address any aspect of brachytherapy are invited. Letters to the Editor-in-Chief are encouraged.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信