Technical feasibility of novel immunostimulatory low‐dose radiation for polymetastatic disease with CBCT‐based online adaptive and conventional approaches

Abstract

AbstractPurposeA workflow/planning strategy delivering low‐dose radiation therapy (LDRT) (1 Gy) to all polymetastatic diseases using conventional planning/delivery (Raystation/Halcyon = “conventional”) and the AI‐based Ethos online adaptive RT (oART) platform is developed/evaluated.MethodsUsing retrospective data for ten polymetastatic non‐small cell lung cancer patients (5‐52 lesions each) with PET/CTs, gross tumor volumes (GTVs) were delineated using PET standardized‐uptake‐value (SUV) thresholding. A 1 cm uniform expansion of GTVs to account for setup/contour uncertainty and organ motion‐generated planning target volumes (PTVs). Dose optimization/calculation used the diagnostic CT from PET/CT. Dosimetric objectives were: Dmin,0.03cc ≥ 95% (acceptable variation (Δ) ≥ 90%), V100% ≥ 95% (Δ ≥ 90%), and D0.03cc ≤ 120% (Δ ≤ 125%). Additionally, online adaptation was simulated. When available, subsequent diagnostic CT was used to represent on‐treatment CBCT. Otherwise, the CT from PET/CT used for initial planning was deformed to simulate clinically representative changes.ResultsAll initial plans generated, both for Raystation and Ethos, achieved clinical goals within acceptable variation. For all patients, Dmin,0.03cc ≥ 95%, V100% ≥ 95%, and D0.03cc ≤ 120% goals were achieved for 84.8%/99.5%, 97.7%/98.7%, 97.4%/92.3%, in conventional/Ethos plans, respectively. The ratio of 50% isodose volume to PTV volume (R50%), maximum dose at 2 cm from PTV (D2cm), and the ratio of the 100% isodose volume to PTV volume (conformity index) in Raystation/Ethos plans were 7.9/5.9; 102.3%/88.44%; and 0.99/1.01, respectively. In Ethos, online adapted plans maintained PTV coverage whereas scheduled plans often resulted in geographic misses due to changes in tumor size, patient position, and body habitus. The average total duration of the oART workflow was 26:15 (min:sec) ranging from 6:43 to 57:30. The duration of each oART workflow step as a function of a number of targets showed a low correlation coefficient for influencer generation and editing (R2 = 0.04 and 0.02, respectively) and high correlation coefficient for target generation, target editing and plan generation (R2 = 0.68, 0.63 and 0.69, respectively).ConclusionsThis study demonstrates feasibility of conventional planning/treatment with Raystation/Halcyon and highlights efficiency gains when utilizing semi‐automated planning/online‐adaptive treatment with Ethos for immunostimulatory LDRT conformally delivered to all sites of polymetastatic disease.