Maggie Yan, Erika Kollitz, Sheng-Hsuan Sun, Kathryn Hitchcock, Alexandra De Leo, Amanda Schwarz, Luke Maloney, Jonathan Li, Chihray Liu, Guanghua Yan
{"title":"Elekta Unity上患者设置的变化及其对适应性规划的影响。","authors":"Maggie Yan, Erika Kollitz, Sheng-Hsuan Sun, Kathryn Hitchcock, Alexandra De Leo, Amanda Schwarz, Luke Maloney, Jonathan Li, Chihray Liu, Guanghua Yan","doi":"10.1002/acm2.70016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>The unique design of the MR-linac may restrict the use of effective immobilization devices, resulting in significant patient setup variations (PSVs). The purpose of this study is to analyze the PSVs on the Elekta Unity system and investigate their impact on adaptive planning.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The PSVs for 10 brain, 10 pancreas, five prostate, and five rectum patients previously treated on Elekta Unity were analyzed. The five prostate and five pancreas plans were selected to investigate the impact of PSVs on adaptive planning. The reference scans were shifted by 1, 2, and 3 cm in the left–right (LR) and superior–inferior (SI) directions to simulate PSVs. Both the adaptive-to-position (ATP) and adaptive-to-shape (ATS) workflows were executed. The adaptive planning time, number of monitor units (MUs), and dosimetric metrics quantifying target coverage and organ-at-risks (OARs) sparing were compared.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>For brain treatments, the average/maximum PSVs were −0.2 ± 0.3 cm/0.8 cm (LR), 0.3 ± 0.7 cm/1.8 cm (SI), and 0.8 ± 0.7 cm/1.8 cm in the anterior–posterior (AP) direction. For pancreas treatments, the PSVs are −0.1 ± 1.0 cm/3.8 cm (LR), −0.1 ± 0.8 cm/3.5 cm (SI), and 0.3 ± 0.3 cm/1.3 cm (AP). Pelvis treatments had similar PSVs as pancreas treatments. The ATS workflow took two to three times longer than the ATP workflow. The only trend observed was that the plan MUs increased slightly (< 10%) with PSVs in the ATP workflow for prostate patients. Both workflows effectively reproduced target coverage and OAR sparing, regardless of the magnitude of the PSVs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Significant PSVs were observed on Elekta Unity due to suboptimal patient immobilization. Using prostate and pancreas treatments as examples, we demonstrated that adaptive planning can effectively accommodate such PSVs. Nevertheless, efforts should be made to minimize PSVs—particularly rotations—to mitigate intra-fraction motion and reduce treatment time.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":"26 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.70016","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient setup variation on Elekta Unity and its impact on adaptive planning\",\"authors\":\"Maggie Yan, Erika Kollitz, Sheng-Hsuan Sun, Kathryn Hitchcock, Alexandra De Leo, Amanda Schwarz, Luke Maloney, Jonathan Li, Chihray Liu, Guanghua Yan\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/acm2.70016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>The unique design of the MR-linac may restrict the use of effective immobilization devices, resulting in significant patient setup variations (PSVs). The purpose of this study is to analyze the PSVs on the Elekta Unity system and investigate their impact on adaptive planning.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>The PSVs for 10 brain, 10 pancreas, five prostate, and five rectum patients previously treated on Elekta Unity were analyzed. The five prostate and five pancreas plans were selected to investigate the impact of PSVs on adaptive planning. The reference scans were shifted by 1, 2, and 3 cm in the left–right (LR) and superior–inferior (SI) directions to simulate PSVs. Both the adaptive-to-position (ATP) and adaptive-to-shape (ATS) workflows were executed. The adaptive planning time, number of monitor units (MUs), and dosimetric metrics quantifying target coverage and organ-at-risks (OARs) sparing were compared.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>For brain treatments, the average/maximum PSVs were −0.2 ± 0.3 cm/0.8 cm (LR), 0.3 ± 0.7 cm/1.8 cm (SI), and 0.8 ± 0.7 cm/1.8 cm in the anterior–posterior (AP) direction. For pancreas treatments, the PSVs are −0.1 ± 1.0 cm/3.8 cm (LR), −0.1 ± 0.8 cm/3.5 cm (SI), and 0.3 ± 0.3 cm/1.3 cm (AP). Pelvis treatments had similar PSVs as pancreas treatments. The ATS workflow took two to three times longer than the ATP workflow. The only trend observed was that the plan MUs increased slightly (< 10%) with PSVs in the ATP workflow for prostate patients. Both workflows effectively reproduced target coverage and OAR sparing, regardless of the magnitude of the PSVs.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Significant PSVs were observed on Elekta Unity due to suboptimal patient immobilization. Using prostate and pancreas treatments as examples, we demonstrated that adaptive planning can effectively accommodate such PSVs. Nevertheless, efforts should be made to minimize PSVs—particularly rotations—to mitigate intra-fraction motion and reduce treatment time.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"volume\":\"26 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.70016\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.70016\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.70016","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:MR-linac的独特设计可能限制有效固定装置的使用,导致显著的患者设置变化(psv)。本研究的目的是分析Elekta Unity系统上的psv,并调查其对适应性规划的影响。方法:对10例脑、10例胰腺、5例前列腺、5例直肠患者的psv进行分析。选择5个前列腺和5个胰腺计划来研究psv对适应性计划的影响。参考扫描在左右(LR)和上下(SI)方向上移动1,2,3 cm以模拟psv。同时执行了自适应位置(ATP)和自适应形状(ATS)工作流。比较了自适应规划时间、监测单元(MUs)数量和量化目标覆盖和器官风险(OARs)节约的剂量学指标。结果:颅脑治疗的平均/最大psv分别为-0.2±0.3 cm/0.8 cm (LR)、0.3±0.7 cm/1.8 cm (SI)和0.8±0.7 cm/1.8 cm (AP)。对于胰腺癌的治疗,埃因霍温是-0.1±1.0厘米/ 3.8厘米(LR), -0.1±0.8厘米/ 3.5厘米(SI),和0.3±0.3厘米/ 1.3厘米(美联社)。骨盆治疗与胰腺治疗的psv相似。ATS的工作流程比ATP的工作流程要长两到三倍。观察到的唯一趋势是计划MUs略有增加(结论:由于患者不理想的固定,Elekta Unity观察到显著的psv。以前列腺和胰腺治疗为例,我们证明了适应性规划可以有效地适应这些psv。然而,应该努力减少psv,特别是旋转,以减轻分数内运动和缩短治疗时间。
Patient setup variation on Elekta Unity and its impact on adaptive planning
Purpose
The unique design of the MR-linac may restrict the use of effective immobilization devices, resulting in significant patient setup variations (PSVs). The purpose of this study is to analyze the PSVs on the Elekta Unity system and investigate their impact on adaptive planning.
Methods
The PSVs for 10 brain, 10 pancreas, five prostate, and five rectum patients previously treated on Elekta Unity were analyzed. The five prostate and five pancreas plans were selected to investigate the impact of PSVs on adaptive planning. The reference scans were shifted by 1, 2, and 3 cm in the left–right (LR) and superior–inferior (SI) directions to simulate PSVs. Both the adaptive-to-position (ATP) and adaptive-to-shape (ATS) workflows were executed. The adaptive planning time, number of monitor units (MUs), and dosimetric metrics quantifying target coverage and organ-at-risks (OARs) sparing were compared.
Results
For brain treatments, the average/maximum PSVs were −0.2 ± 0.3 cm/0.8 cm (LR), 0.3 ± 0.7 cm/1.8 cm (SI), and 0.8 ± 0.7 cm/1.8 cm in the anterior–posterior (AP) direction. For pancreas treatments, the PSVs are −0.1 ± 1.0 cm/3.8 cm (LR), −0.1 ± 0.8 cm/3.5 cm (SI), and 0.3 ± 0.3 cm/1.3 cm (AP). Pelvis treatments had similar PSVs as pancreas treatments. The ATS workflow took two to three times longer than the ATP workflow. The only trend observed was that the plan MUs increased slightly (< 10%) with PSVs in the ATP workflow for prostate patients. Both workflows effectively reproduced target coverage and OAR sparing, regardless of the magnitude of the PSVs.
Conclusions
Significant PSVs were observed on Elekta Unity due to suboptimal patient immobilization. Using prostate and pancreas treatments as examples, we demonstrated that adaptive planning can effectively accommodate such PSVs. Nevertheless, efforts should be made to minimize PSVs—particularly rotations—to mitigate intra-fraction motion and reduce treatment time.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission.
JACMP will publish:
-Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500.
-Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed.
-Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references.
-Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents.
-Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews.
-Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics.
-Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic