Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of online adaptive radiotherapy with Ethos for breast cancer. Materials and methods: This retrospective study included 20 breast cancer patients previously treated with TrueBeam. All had undergone breast surgery for different indications (right/left, lumpectomy/mastectomy) and were evenly divided between these four cases, with five extended cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans per patient. The dataset was used in an Ethos emulator to test the full adaptive workflow. The contours generated by artificial intelligence (AI) for the influencers (left and right breasts and lungs, heart) and elastic or rigid propagation for the target volumes (internal mammary chain (IMC) and clavicular lymph nodes (CLNs)) were compared to the initial contours delineated by the physician using two metrics: Dice similarity coefficient (DICE) and Hausdorff 95% distance (HD95). The repeatability of influencer generation was investigated. The times taken by the emulator to generate contours, optimize plans, and calculate doses were recorded. The quality of the scheduled and adapted plans generated by Ethos was assessed using planning target volume (PTV) coverage, homogeneity indices (HIs), and doses to organs at risk (OARs) via dose-volume histogram (DVH) metrics. Quality assurance (QA) of the treatment plans was performed using an independent portal dosimetry tool (EpiQA) and gamma index. Results: On average, the DICE for the influencers was greater than 0.9. Contours resulting from rigid propagation had a higher DICE and a lower HD95 than those resulting from elastic deformation but remained below the values obtained for the influencers: DICE values were 0.79 ± 0.11 and 0.46 ± 0.17 for the CLN and IMC, respectively. Regarding the repeatability of the influencer segmentation, the DICE was close to 1, and the mean HD95 was strictly less than 0.15 mm. The mean time was 73 ± 4 s for contour generation per AI and 80 ± 9 s for propagations. The average time was 53 ± 3 s for dose calculation and 125 ± 9 s for plan optimization. A dosimetric comparison of scheduled and adapted plans showed a significant difference in PTV coverage: dose received by 95% of the volume (D95%) values were higher and closer to the prescribed doses for adapted plans. Doses to organs at risk were similar. The average gamma index for quality assurance of adapted plans was 99.93 ± 0.38 for a 3%/3mm criterion. Conclusion: adaptive workflow for breast cancer and its potential technical limitations. Although the results demonstrated the high accuracy of AI segmentation and the superiority of adapted plans in terms of target volume coverage, a medical assessment is still required.
Galand et al. (Mon,) studied this question.