Manuela Meraldi , Nicola Lambri , Damiano Dei , Piera Navarria , Giacomo Reggiori , Ciro Franzese , Stefano Tomatis , Cristina Lenardi , Marta Scorsetti , Pietro Mancosu
{"title":"Knowledge-based model for automated multi-isocenter total marrow and lymphoid irradiation planning across standard and large patient anatomies","authors":"Manuela Meraldi , Nicola Lambri , Damiano Dei , Piera Navarria , Giacomo Reggiori , Ciro Franzese , Stefano Tomatis , Cristina Lenardi , Marta Scorsetti , Pietro Mancosu","doi":"10.1016/j.phro.2025.100781","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and purpose</h3><div>Total marrow and lymphoid irradiation (TMLI) planning is challenging. This study evaluates whether a knowledge-based (KB) model for TMLI delivered using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can achieve clinically acceptable dose distributions through fully or semi-automated optimization and whether a single model is effective across varying patient anatomies.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>Fifty-one consecutive VMAT-TMLI patients were selected. A KB model was trained using 30 patients treated with standard configurations (5 body isocenters). Validation included two cohorts: 10 standard patients and 11 patients with a larger anatomy treated using separate isocenters for the arms (4 body and 2 arms isocenters). Two planning approaches were explored: fully automated (AutoKB), and KB with manual adjustments (HybridKB) by a planner with no prior experience in TMLI. KB plans were evaluated against clinical plans (CPs) using paired t-tests.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The KB model reduced mean doses to major organs-at-risk (OARs). For standard configurations, mean OAR doses were 71% ± 2%, 66% ± 2%, and 66% ± 2% for CP, AutoKB, and HybridKB (both p < 0.01). For larger patients, the corresponding values were 75% ± 3%, 69% ± 2%, and 68% ± 2% (both p < 0.01). D2% of the planning target volume increased in AutoKB, reaching 122% ± 2% (p < 0.001) vs. 117% ± 3% in CP for standard configurations, and 126% ± 2% (p < 0.001) vs. 117% ± 3% in CP for arms configurations. HybridKB was on par with CPs.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>A single KB model enabled effective planning for multi-isocenter TMLI, including anatomies requiring separate isocenters for the arms. Fully automated KB provided suboptimal dose distributions. KB with manual refinements reduced planner dependence and improved plan quality.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36850,"journal":{"name":"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology","volume":"34 ","pages":"Article 100781"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405631625000867","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and purpose
Total marrow and lymphoid irradiation (TMLI) planning is challenging. This study evaluates whether a knowledge-based (KB) model for TMLI delivered using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can achieve clinically acceptable dose distributions through fully or semi-automated optimization and whether a single model is effective across varying patient anatomies.
Materials and methods
Fifty-one consecutive VMAT-TMLI patients were selected. A KB model was trained using 30 patients treated with standard configurations (5 body isocenters). Validation included two cohorts: 10 standard patients and 11 patients with a larger anatomy treated using separate isocenters for the arms (4 body and 2 arms isocenters). Two planning approaches were explored: fully automated (AutoKB), and KB with manual adjustments (HybridKB) by a planner with no prior experience in TMLI. KB plans were evaluated against clinical plans (CPs) using paired t-tests.
Results
The KB model reduced mean doses to major organs-at-risk (OARs). For standard configurations, mean OAR doses were 71% ± 2%, 66% ± 2%, and 66% ± 2% for CP, AutoKB, and HybridKB (both p < 0.01). For larger patients, the corresponding values were 75% ± 3%, 69% ± 2%, and 68% ± 2% (both p < 0.01). D2% of the planning target volume increased in AutoKB, reaching 122% ± 2% (p < 0.001) vs. 117% ± 3% in CP for standard configurations, and 126% ± 2% (p < 0.001) vs. 117% ± 3% in CP for arms configurations. HybridKB was on par with CPs.
Conclusions
A single KB model enabled effective planning for multi-isocenter TMLI, including anatomies requiring separate isocenters for the arms. Fully automated KB provided suboptimal dose distributions. KB with manual refinements reduced planner dependence and improved plan quality.