Online adaptive radiotherapy: Assessment of planning technique and its impact on longitudinal plan quality robustness in pancreatic cancer Article

Mittauer, KE, Yarlagadda, S, Bryant, JM et al. (2023). Online adaptive radiotherapy: Assessment of planning technique and its impact on longitudinal plan quality robustness in pancreatic cancer . 188 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109869

cited authors

  • Mittauer, KE; Yarlagadda, S; Bryant, JM; Bassiri, N; Romaguera, T; Gomez, AG; Herrera, R; Kotecha, R; Mehta, MP; Gutierrez, AN; Chuong, MD



  • Background and Purpose: Planning on a static dataset that reflects the simulation day anatomy is routine for SBRT. We hypothesize the quality of on-table adaptive plans is similar to the baseline plan when delivering stereotactic MR-guided adaptive radiotherapy (SMART) for pancreatic cancer (PCa). Materials and Methods: Sixty-seven inoperable PCa patients were prescribed 50 Gy/5-fraction SMART. Baseline planning included: 3–5 mm gastrointestinal (GI) PRV, 50 Gy optimization target (PTVopt) based on GI PRV, conformality rings, and contracted GTV to guide the hotspot. For each adaptation, GI anatomy was re-contoured, followed by re-optimization. Plan quality was evaluated for target coverage (TC = PTVopt V100%/volume), PTV D90% and D80%, homogeneity index (HI = PTVopt D2%/D98%), prescription isodose/target volume (PITV), low-dose conformity (D2cm = maximum dose at 2 cm from PTVopt/Rx dose), and gradient index (R50%=50% Rx isodose volume/PTVopt volume). A novel global planning metric, termed the Pancreas Adaptive Radiotherapy Score (PARTS), was developed and implemented based on GI OAR sparing, PTV/GTV coverage, and conformality. Adaptive robustness (baseline to fraction 1) and stability (difference between two fractions with highest GI PRV variation) were quantified. Results: OAR constraints were met on all baseline (n = 67) and adaptive (n = 318) plans. Coverage for baseline/adaptive plans was mean ± SD at 44.9 ± 5.8 Gy/44.3 ± 5.5 Gy (PTV D80%), 50.1 ± 4.2 Gy/49.1 ± 4.7 Gy (PTVopt D80%), and 80%±18%/74%±18% (TC), respectively. Mean homogeneity and conformality for baseline/adaptive plans were 0.87 ± 0.25/0.81 ± 0.30 (PITV), 3.81 ± 1.87/3.87 ± 2.0 (R50%), 1.53 ± 0.23/1.55 ± 0.23 (HI), and 58%±7%/59%±7% (D2cm), respectively. PARTS was found to be a sensitive metric due to its additive influence of geometry changes on PARTS’ sub-metrics. There were no statistical differences (p > 0.05) for stability, except for PARTS (p = 0.04, median difference −0.6%). Statistical differences for robustness when significant were small for most metrics (<2.0% median). Median adaptive re-optimizations were 2. Conclusion: We describe a 5-fraction ablative SMART planning approach for PCa that is robust and stable during on-table adaption, due to gradients controlled by a GI PRV technique and the use of rings. These findings are noteworthy given that daily interfraction anatomic GI OAR differences are routine, thus necessitating on-table adaptation. This work supports feasibility towards utilizing a patient-independent, template on-table adaptive approach.

publication date

  • November 1, 2023

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)


  • 188