% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Regnery:276330,
author = {S. Regnery and L. Leiner and C. Buchele and P. Hoegen$^*$
and E. Sandrini and T. Held and M. Deng and T. Eichkorn and
C. Rippke and C. K. Renkamp and L. König and K. Lang and S.
Adeberg and J. Debus$^*$ and S. Klüter and J.
Hörner-Rieber$^*$},
title = {{C}omparison of different dose accumulation strategies to
estimate organ doses after stereotactic magnetic
resonance-guided adaptive radiotherapy.},
journal = {Radiation oncology},
volume = {18},
number = {1},
issn = {1748-717X},
address = {London},
publisher = {BioMed Central},
reportid = {DKFZ-2023-01060},
pages = {92},
year = {2023},
note = {#LA:E050#},
abstract = {Re-irradiation is frequently performed in the era of
precision oncology, but previous doses to organs-at-risk
(OAR) must be assessed to avoid cumulative overdoses.
Stereotactic magnetic resonance-guided online adaptive
radiotherapy (SMART) enables highly precise ablation of
tumors close to OAR. However, OAR doses may change
considerably during adaptive treatment, which complicates
potential re-irradiation. We aimed to compare the baseline
plan with different dose accumulation techniques to inform
re-irradiation.We analyzed 18 patients who received SMART to
lung or liver tumors inside prospective databases.
Cumulative doses were calculated inside the planning target
volumes (PTV) and OAR for the adapted plans and theoretical
non-adapted plans via (1) cumulative dose volume histograms
(DVH sum plan) and (2) deformable image registration
(DIR)-based dose accumulation to planning images (DIR sum
plan). We compared cumulative dose parameters between the
baseline plan, DVH sum plan and DIR sum plan using
equivalent doses in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2).Individual
patients presented relevant increases of near-maximum doses
inside the proximal bronchial tree, spinal cord, heart and
gastrointestinal OAR when comparing adaptive treatment to
the baseline plans. The spinal cord near-maximum doses were
significantly increased in the liver patients $(D2\%$
median: baseline 6.1 Gy, DIR sum 8.1 Gy, DVH sum 8.4 Gy, p =
0.04; D0.1 cm³ median: baseline 6.1 Gy, DIR sum 8.1 Gy, DVH
sum 8.5 Gy, p = 0.04). Three OAR overdoses occurred during
adaptive treatment (DIR sum: 1, DVH sum: 2), and four more
intense OAR overdoses would have occurred during
non-adaptive treatment (DIR sum: 4, DVH sum: 3). Adaptive
treatment maintained similar PTV coverages to the baseline
plans, while non-adaptive treatment yielded significantly
worse PTV coverages in the lung $(D95\%$ median: baseline
86.4 Gy, DIR sum 82.4 Gy, DVH sum 82.2 Gy, p = 0.006) and
liver patients $(D95\%$ median: baseline 87.4 Gy, DIR sum
82.1 Gy, DVH sum 81.1 Gy, p = 0.04).OAR doses can increase
during SMART, so that re-irradiation should be planned based
on dose accumulations of the adapted plans instead of the
baseline plan. Cumulative dose volume histograms represent a
simple and conservative dose accumulation strategy.},
keywords = {Deformable image Registration (Other) / Dose accumulation
(Other) / Image-guided Radiotherapy (IGRT) (Other) / Liver
Cancer (Other) / MR-guided adaptive radiotherapy (Other) /
Pulmonary Cancer (Other) / Stereotactic body Radiotherapy
(SABR) (Other)},
cin = {E050},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)E050-20160331},
pnm = {315 - Bildgebung und Radioonkologie (POF4-315)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-315},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:37248504},
doi = {10.1186/s13014-023-02284-7},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/276330},
}