The feasibility of CT simulation‐free adaptive radiation therapy

Abstract Background Novel on‐board CBCT allows for improved image quality and Hounsfield unit accuracy. When coupled with online adaptive tools, this may have potential to allow for simulation and treatment to be completed in a single on‐table session. Purpose To study the feasibility of a high‐efficiency radiotherapy treatment workflow without the use of a separate session for simulation imaging. The dosimetric accuracy, overall efficiency, and technical feasibility were used to evaluate the clinical potential of CT simulation‐free adaptive radiotherapy. Methods Varian's Ethos adaptive radiotherapy treatment platform was upgraded with a novel CBCT system, HyperSight which reports image quality and Hounsfield unit accuracy specifications comparable to standard fan‐beam CT. Using in‐house developed MATLAB software, CBCT images were imported into the system and used for planning. Two test cases were completed on anthropomorphic phantoms equipped with small volume ion chambers (cross‐calibrated to an ADCL traceable dose standard) to evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of the workflows. A simulated palliative spine treatment was planned with 8 Gy in one fraction, and an intact prostate treatment was planned with 60 Gy in 20 fractions. The CBCTs were acquired using HyperSight with default thorax and pelvis imaging protocols and reconstructed using an iterative algorithm with scatter removal, iCBCT Acuros. CBCTs were used for contouring and planning, and treatment was delivered via an online adaptive workflow. In addition, an external dosimetry audit was completed using only on‐board CBCT imaging in an end‐to‐end head and neck phantom irradiation. Results An extended‐field CBCT acquisition can be acquired in 12 s, in addition to the time for longitudinal table shifts, and reconstructed in approximately 1 min. The superior‐inferior extent for the CBCT planning images was 38.2 cm, which captured the full extent of relevant anatomy. The contouring and treatment planning for the spine and prostate were completed in 30 and 18 min, respectively. The dosimetric agreement between ion chamber measurements and the treatment plan was within a range of −1.4 to 1.6%, and a mean and standard deviation of 0.41 ± 1.16%. All metrics used in the external audit met the passing criteria, and the dosimetric comparison between fan‐beam and CBCT techniques had a gamma passing rate of 99.0% with a criteria of 2%/2 mm. Conclusion Using an in‐house workflow, CT simulation‐free radiation therapy was shown to be feasible with acceptable workflow efficiency and dosimetric accuracy. This approach may be particularly applicable for urgent palliative treatments. With the availability of software to enable this workflow, and the continued advancement of on‐treatment adaptation, single‐visit radiation therapy may replace current practice for some clinical indications.