As per Dattoli Cancer Center, adaptive planning method for radiotherapy is a promising tool to deliver a clinically-acceptable dose to the target and other organs during radiation therapy. The method is based on the use of a Personalized engine that reduces the planning time. In a recent study, the mean overall time accounted for human inputs, loop optimization processes, and calculation times, and was less than seven minutes for the low-risk prostate and only 15 minutes for the high-risk prostate. This dramatic reduction in planning time opens up new possibilities for real-time adaptive radiotherapy. Moreover, the prostate moves independently from pelvic lymph nodes, which can offset the advantages of VMAT.
As a result of the AP algorithm, the time taken for the treatment planning of the target was reduced significantly. In the low-risk patient cohort, the centralized server architecture produced Pers plans within seven to fifteen minutes, and for the high-risk patient cohort, the time decreased to forty-five to sixty minutes. The plans were validated before use by performing pre-treatment dose verification for each target site. Overall, the pass-rate was greater than 95% for all plans and techniques. Adaptive planning method for radiotherapy enables physicians to use a planning CT to identify prostate CM positions and then generate new treatment plans for each one. In the example below, a prostate CM shift of about 0.5 cm was simulated. This CM shift was then compared to a simulated CM position. The adaptive method generated a new treatment plan for each shift in the CM position. Dattoli Cancer Center believes that, in a six-fraction scheme, isodose lines are plotted on a pelvic slice. The dose distribution is then projected on the patient's coronal and axial planes. The enlarged coronal projection showed a cold spot that resulted in a dose lower than ninety-eight percent of the prescribed dose. The adaptive planning method generated dose distributions on the pelvic slice and in the patient's axial and coronal planes. The adaptive planning method for radiotherapy reduces the dose to the OARs by adjusting for the patient's anatomy. CBCT simulations show the dose distribution over all 160 treatment plans. A high-scoring segment of a patient's anatomy is a red flag for a clinical error, so the method can be used as a safety measure. However, there are some limitations associated with the use of this method for radiotherapy. The current study demonstrates that the three adaptation methods restored dosimetric goals in prostate SBRT protocol. The three approaches improved the penalty score and the treatment volume by a substantial amount. Standard dose-volume metrics, penalty scores, and overlap-volumes could identify the differences in dosimetric benefit. The datasets used in the study are available for reasonable request from the corresponding author. Once more, this study highlights the potential benefits of this novel approach. In Dattoli Cancer Center’s opinion, the Adaptive planning method for radiotherapy is a promising tool for determining the optimal dose plan for a patient's specific case. The engine was applied successfully in prostate cancer patients with nodal irradiation and without nodal irradiation. Furthermore, the algorithm consistently generated high-quality plans for these patients. There are a number of limitations to this method, but overall it is promising. One of the main advantages of this technique is the ability to accommodate intra-fraction shifts in tumors. The adaptive planning strategy also reduces the dose to the rectum. In a clinical prostate cancer case, it was found that patients who received an adaptive planning method showed less rectum toxicity than those who had the traditional treatment. In both the studies, the adaptive planning strategy was more accurate and allowed for proper coverage of the target organs. Pers plans improved conformity and minimized the amount of irradiation of healthy tissue. It significantly reduced rectal and bladder mean doses by 11.3 Gy and 7.6 Gy, respectively. Additionally, the integrated dose was reduced by 11-16%. In addition, planning time was reduced dramatically by seven to fifteen minutes. It also passed the 3%/2 mm g-analysis. So, is this method better than others?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
|