| Title |
Optimization of treatment planning workflow and tumor coverage during daily adaptive magnetic resonance image guided radiation therapy (MR-IGRT) of pancreatic cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Radiation Oncology, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13014-018-1000-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sven Olberg, Olga Green, Bin Cai, Deshan Yang, Vivian Rodriguez, Hao Zhang, Jin Sung Kim, Parag J. Parikh, Sasa Mutic, Justin C. Park |
| Abstract |
To simplify the adaptive treatment planning workflow while achieving the optimal tumor-dose coverage in pancreatic cancer patients undergoing daily adaptive magnetic resonance image guided radiation therapy (MR-IGRT). In daily adaptive MR-IGRT, the plan objective function constructed during simulation is used for plan re-optimization throughout the course of treatment. In this study, we have constructed the initial objective functions using two methods for 16 pancreatic cancer patients treated with the ViewRay™ MR-IGRT system: 1) the conventional method that handles the stomach, duodenum, small bowel, and large bowel as separate organs at risk (OARs) and 2) the OAR grouping method. Using OAR grouping, a combined OAR structure that encompasses the portions of these four primary OARs within 3 cm of the planning target volume (PTV) is created. OAR grouping simulation plans were optimized such that the target coverage was comparable to the clinical simulation plan constructed in the conventional manner. In both cases, the initial objective function was then applied to each successive treatment fraction and the plan was re-optimized based on the patient's daily anatomy. OAR grouping plans were compared to conventional plans at each fraction in terms of coverage of the PTV and the optimized PTV (PTV OPT), which is the result of the subtraction of overlapping OAR volumes with an additional margin from the PTV. Plan performance was enhanced across a majority of fractions using OAR grouping. The percentage of the volume of the PTV covered by 95% of the prescribed dose (D95) was improved by an average of 3.87 ± 4.29% while D95 coverage of the PTV OPT increased by 3.98 ± 4.97%. Finally, D100 coverage of the PTV demonstrated an average increase of 6.47 ± 7.16% and a maximum improvement of 20.19%. In this study, our proposed OAR grouping plans generally outperformed conventional plans, especially when the conventional simulation plan favored or disregarded an OAR through the assignment of distinct weighting parameters relative to the other critical structures. OAR grouping simplifies the MR-IGRT adaptive treatment planning workflow at simulation while demonstrating improved coverage compared to delivered pancreatic cancer treatment plans in daily adaptive radiation therapy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 48 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 23% |
| Researcher | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 21% |
| Unknown | 11 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 29% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 7 | 15% |
| Engineering | 4 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 15 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 March 2018.
All research outputs
#18,591,506
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#1,430
of 2,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,379
of 331,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#28
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,073 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,322 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.