TY - JOUR
T1 - Simulation-Free Radiation Therapy
T2 - An Emerging Form of Treatment Planning to Expedite Plan Generation for Patients Receiving Palliative Radiation Therapy
AU - Schiff, Joshua P.
AU - Zhao, Tianyu
AU - Huang, Yi
AU - Sun, Baozhou
AU - Hugo, Geoffrey D.
AU - Spraker, Matthew B.
AU - Abraham, Christopher D.
N1 - Funding Information:
Disclosures: Dr Zhao reports funding grants from Varian Medical Systems, Inc, and Washington University Big Ideas Funds, as well as the following patent: image deformation methods and curved couch for radiation therapy treatment planning, PCT International Application No. PCT/US19/55709. Dr Sun reports funding grants from Varian Medical Systems, Inc, and McDonnell International Scholars Academy at Washington University School of Medicine, and is the chair of American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 330.
Funding Information:
Dr Hugo reports funding grants, royalties, and consulting fees from Varian Medical Systems, Inc, and funding grants from Siemens Healthineers, ViewRay, Inc, and Mevion Medical Systems. Dr Spraker reports funding grants from the Fred L. Emerson Foundation, Inc, Varian Medical Systems, Inc, and American College of Radiology, and honoraria from Varian Medical Systems, Inc.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Author(s)
PY - 2023/1/1
Y1 - 2023/1/1
N2 - Purpose: Herein we report the clinical and dosimetric experience for patients with metastases treated with palliative simulation-free radiation therapy (SFRT) at a single institution. Methods and Materials: SFRT was performed at a single institution. Multiple fractionation regimens were used. Diagnostic imaging was used for treatment planning. Patient characteristics as well as planning and treatment time points were collected. A matched cohort of patients with conventional computed tomography simulation radiation therapy (CTRT) was acquired to evaluate for differences in planning and treatment time. SFRT dosimetry was evaluated to determine the fidelity of SFRT. Descriptive statistics were calculated on all variables and statistical significance was evaluated using the Wilcoxon signed rank test and t test methods. Results: Thirty sessions of SFRT were performed and matched with 30 sessions of CTRT. Seventy percent of SFRT and 63% of CTRT treatments were single fraction. The median time to plan generation was 0.88 days (0.19-1.47) for SFRT and 1.90 days (0.39-5.23) for CTRT (P = .02). The total treatment time was 41 minutes (28-64) for SFRT and 30 minutes (21-45) for CTRT (P = .02). In the SFRT courses, the maximum and mean deviations in the actual delivered dose from the approved plans for the maximum dose were 4.1% and 0.07%, respectively. All deliveries were within a 5% threshold and deemed clinically acceptable. Conclusions: Palliative SFRT is an emerging technique that allowed for a statistically significant lower time to plan generation and was dosimetrically acceptable. This benefit must be weighed against increased total treatment time for patients receiving SFRT compared with CTRT, and appropriate patient selection is critical.
AB - Purpose: Herein we report the clinical and dosimetric experience for patients with metastases treated with palliative simulation-free radiation therapy (SFRT) at a single institution. Methods and Materials: SFRT was performed at a single institution. Multiple fractionation regimens were used. Diagnostic imaging was used for treatment planning. Patient characteristics as well as planning and treatment time points were collected. A matched cohort of patients with conventional computed tomography simulation radiation therapy (CTRT) was acquired to evaluate for differences in planning and treatment time. SFRT dosimetry was evaluated to determine the fidelity of SFRT. Descriptive statistics were calculated on all variables and statistical significance was evaluated using the Wilcoxon signed rank test and t test methods. Results: Thirty sessions of SFRT were performed and matched with 30 sessions of CTRT. Seventy percent of SFRT and 63% of CTRT treatments were single fraction. The median time to plan generation was 0.88 days (0.19-1.47) for SFRT and 1.90 days (0.39-5.23) for CTRT (P = .02). The total treatment time was 41 minutes (28-64) for SFRT and 30 minutes (21-45) for CTRT (P = .02). In the SFRT courses, the maximum and mean deviations in the actual delivered dose from the approved plans for the maximum dose were 4.1% and 0.07%, respectively. All deliveries were within a 5% threshold and deemed clinically acceptable. Conclusions: Palliative SFRT is an emerging technique that allowed for a statistically significant lower time to plan generation and was dosimetrically acceptable. This benefit must be weighed against increased total treatment time for patients receiving SFRT compared with CTRT, and appropriate patient selection is critical.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85140326901&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.adro.2022.101091
DO - 10.1016/j.adro.2022.101091
M3 - Article
C2 - 36304132
AN - SCOPUS:85140326901
SN - 2452-1094
VL - 8
JO - Advances in Radiation Oncology
JF - Advances in Radiation Oncology
IS - 1
M1 - 101091
ER -