Optimal timing of organs-at-risk-sparing adaptive radiation therapy for head-and-neck cancer under re-planning resource constraints
Background and purpose: Prior work on adaptive organ-at-risk (OAR)-sparing radiation therapy has typically reported outcomes based on fixed-number or fixed-interval re-planning, which represent one-size-fits-all approaches and do not account for the variable progression of individual patients’ toxic...
Saved in:
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Elsevier
2025-01-01
|
Series: | Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240563162500020X |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Background and purpose: Prior work on adaptive organ-at-risk (OAR)-sparing radiation therapy has typically reported outcomes based on fixed-number or fixed-interval re-planning, which represent one-size-fits-all approaches and do not account for the variable progression of individual patients’ toxicities. The purpose of this study was to determine the personalized optimal timing of re-planning in adaptive OAR-sparing radiation therapy, considering limited re-planning resources, for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). Materials and methods: A novel Markov decision process (MDP) model was developed to determine optimal timing of re-planning based on the patient’s expected toxicity, characterized by normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), for four toxicities. The MDP parameters were derived from a dataset comprising 52 HNC patients treated between 2007 and 2013. Kernel density estimation was used to smooth the sample distributions. Optimal re-planning strategies were obtained when the permissible number of re-plans throughout the treatment was limited to 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Results: The MDP (optimal) solution recommended re-planning when the difference between planned and actual NTCPs (ΔNTCP) was greater than or equal to 1%, 2%, 2%, and 4% at treatment fractions 10, 15, 20, and 25, respectively, exhibiting a temporally increasing pattern. The ΔNTCP thresholds remained constant across the number of re-planning allowances (1, 2, and 3). Conclusion: In limited-resource settings that impeded high-frequency adaptations, ΔNTCP thresholds obtained from an MDP model could derive optimal timing of re-planning to minimize the likelihood of treatment toxicities. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2405-6316 |