Search

IntroductionFollowing a preliminary work validating the technological feasibility of an adaptive workflow with Ethos for whole-breast cancer, this study aims to clinically evaluate the automatic segmentation generated by Ethos.Material and methodsTwenty patients initially treated on a TrueBeam accelerator for different breast cancer indications (right/left, lumpectomy/mastectomy) were replanned using the Ethos® emulator. The adaptive workflow was performed using 5 randomly selected extended CBCTs per patient. The contours generated by artificial intelligence (AI) included both breasts, the heart, and the lungs. The target volumes, specifically the tumor bed (CTV_Boost), internal mammary chain (CTV_IMC), and clavicular nodes (CTV_Nodes), were generated through rigid propagation. The CTV_Breast corresponds to the ipsilateral breast, excluding 5mm from the skin. Two radiation oncologists independently repeated the workflow and qualitatively assessed the accuracy of the contours using a scoring system from 3 (contour to be redone) to 0 (no correction needed). Quantitative evaluation was carried out using the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff Distance (HD), surface Dice (sDSC) and the Added Path Length (APL). The interobserver variability (IOV) between the two observers was also assessed and served as a reference. Lastly, the dosimetric impact of contour correction was evaluated. The physician-validated contours were transferred onto the plans automatically generated by Ethos in adaptive mode. The dose prescription was 52.2Gy in 18 fractions for the boost, 42.3Gy for the breast, IMC, and nodes. The CTV/PTV margin was 2mm for all volumes, except for the IMC (5mm). Dose coverage (D98%) was assessed for the CTVs, while specific parameters for organs at risk (OAR) were evaluated: mean dose and V17Gy (relative volume receiving at least 17Gy) for the ipsilateral lung, mean dose and D2cc (dose received by 2cc volume) for the heart, the contralateral lung and breast.ResultsThe qualitative analysis showed that no correction or only minor corrections were needed for 98.6% of AI-generated contours and 86.7% of the target volumes. Regarding the quantitative analysis, Ethos’ contour generation outperformed inter-observer variability for all structures in terms of DSC, HD, sDSC and APL. Target volume coverage was achieved for 97.9%, 96.3%, 94.2% and 68.8% of the breast, IMC, nodes and boost CTVs, respectively. As for OARs, no significant differences in dosimetric parameters were observed.ConclusionThis study shows high accuracy of segmentation performed by Ethos for breast cancer, except for the CTV_Boost. Contouring practices for adaptive sessions were revised following this study to improve outcomes.

PurposeTo evaluate the feasibility to use a standard Ethos planning template to treat left-sided breast cancer with regional lymph nodes.Material/MethodsThe tuning cohort of 5 patients was used to create a planning template. The validation cohort included 15 patients treated for a locally advanced left breast cancer randomly enrolled. The Ethos planning template was tuned using standard 3 partial arc VMAT and two collimator rotation configurations: 45/285/345° and 30/60/330°. Re-planning was performed automatically using the template without editing. The study was conducted with a schedule of 42.3 Gy in 18 fractions to the breast/chestwall, internal mammary chain (IMC) and regional lymph nodes (“Nodes”). The PTV was defined as a 3D extension of the CTV with a margin of 7 mm, excluding the 5mm below the skin. The manual treatment plans were performed using Eclipse treatment planning system with AAA and PO algorithms (v15.6) and a manual arc VMAT configuration and imported in Ethos TPS (v1.1) for a dose calculation with Ethos Acuros algorithm. The automated plans were compared with the manual plans using PTV and CTV coverage, homogeneity and conformity indices (HI and CN) and doses to organs at risk (OAR) via DVH metrics. For each plan, the patient quality assurance (QA) were performed using Mobius3D and gamma index. Finally, two breast radiation oncologists performed a blinded assessment of the clinical acceptability of each of the three plans (manual and automated) for each patient.ResultsThe manual and automated plans provided suitable treatment planning as regards dose constraints. The dosimetric comparison showed the CTV_breast D99% were significantly improved with both automated plans (p< 0,002) while PTV coverage was comparable. The doses to the organs at risk were equivalent for the three plans. Concerning treatment delivery, the Ethos-45° and Ethos-30° plans led to an increase in MUs compared to the manual plans, without affecting the beam on time. The average gamma index pass rates remained consistently above 98% regardless of the type of plan utilized. In the blinded evaluation, clinicians 1 and 2 assessed 13 out of 15 plans for Ethos 45° and 11 out of 15 plans for Ethos 30° as clinically acceptable.ConclusionUsing a standard planning template for locally advanced breast cancer, the Ethos TPS provided automated plans that were clinically acceptable and comparable in quality to manually generated plans. Automated plans also dramatically reduce workflow and operator variability.

PurposeThe aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of online adaptive radiotherapy with Ethos for breast cancer.Materials and methodsThis 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.ResultsOn 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.ConclusionThis study comprehensively evaluated the Ethos® 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.