Advances in Radiation Oncology (Mar 2024)

Improved Dosimetry and Plan Quality for Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation Using Online Adaptive Radiation Therapy: A Single Institutional Study

  • Joel A. Pogue, PhD,
  • Carlos E. Cardenas, PhD,
  • Dennis N. Stanley, PhD,
  • Courtney Stanley, PhD,
  • Whitney Hotsinpiller, MD,
  • Christopher Veale, MD, MS,
  • Michael H. Soike, MD,
  • Richard A. Popple, PhD,
  • Drexell H. Boggs, MD,
  • Joseph Harms, PhD

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 9, no. 3
p. 101414

Abstract

Read online

Purpose: Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) is an attractive treatment modality for eligible patients as it has been shown to result in similar local control and improved cosmetic outcomes compared with whole breast radiation therapy. The use of online adaptive radiation therapy (OART) for APBI is promising as it allows for a reduction of planning target volume margins because breast motion and lumpectomy cavity volume changes are accounted for in daily imaging. Here we present a retrospective, single-institution evaluation on the adequacy of kV-cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) OART for APBI treatments. Methods and Materials: Nineteen patients (21 treatment sites) were treated to 30 Gy in 5 fractions between January of 2022 and May of 2023. Time between simulation and treatment, change in gross tumor (ie, lumpectomy cavity) volume, and differences in dose volume histogram metrics with adaption were analyzed. The Wilcoxon paired, nonparametric test was used to test for dose volume histogram metric differences between the scheduled plans (initial plans recalculated on daily CBCT anatomy) and delivered plans, either the scheduled or adapted plan, which was reoptimized using daily anatomy. Results: Median (interquartile range) time from simulation to first treatment was 26 days (21-32 days). During this same time, median gross tumor volume reduction was 16.0% (7.3%-23.9%) relative to simulation volume. Adaptive treatments took 31.3 minutes (27.4-36.6 minutes) from start of CBCT to treatment session end. At treatment, the adaptive plan was selected for 86% (89/103) of evaluable fractions. In evaluating plan quality, 78% of delivered plans met all target, organs at risk, and conformity metrics evaluated, compared with 34% of scheduled plans. Conclusions: Use of OART for stereotactic linac-based APBI allowed for safe, high-quality treatments in this cohort of 21 treatment courses. Although treatment delivery times were longer than traditional stereotactic body treatments, there were notable improvements in plan quality for APBI using OART.