First-in-Men Online Adaptive Robotic Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy: Toward Ultrahypofractionation for High-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients

Overview

Journal Adv Radiat Oncol

Date 2025 Jan 27

PMID 39866592

Authors

Victor J Brand

Maaike T W Milder

Miranda E M C Christianen

Kim C de Vries

Mischa S Hoogeman

Luca Incrocci

Femke E Froklage

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Ultrahypofractionation presents challenges for a subset of high-risk prostate cancer patients due to the large planning target volume (PTV) margin required for the seminal vesicles. Online adaptive radiation therapy could potentially reduce this margin. This paper focuses on the development, preclinical validation, and clinical testing of online adaptive robotic stereotactic body radiation therapy for this patient group.

Methods And Materials: An online adaptive workflow was developed for the CyberKnife with integrated in-room CT-on-rails. Preclinical validation involved comparing deep learning-based auto-contouring with deformable or rigid contour propagation in terms of subsequent editing time. A fast treatment planning method was implemented and compared with the conventional method in terms of optimization time and adherence to planning constraints. Clinical testing was conducted in the first study patients of the UPRATE trial, which investigates the feasibility of seminal vesicle PTV margin reduction in low-volume metastasized prostate cancer patients. Treatment time and patient experience were recorded.

Results: Rigid registration for prostate and deep-learning auto-contouring for seminal vesicles and organs at risk were selected based on editing time and robustness for anatomic changes. The fast treatment planning method reduced the optimization time from 10 to 3.5 minutes ( = .005). No significant differences in dose parameters were observed compared with the conventional plans. During clinical testing, 53 of 60 fast treatment plans adhered to the planning constraints, and all 60 were clinically accepted and delivered. The average total treatment time was 67.7 minutes, showing a downward trend. The treatment was well-experienced overall.

Conclusions: Online adaptive stereotactic body radiation therapy using CyberKnife with integrated CT-on-rails is clinically feasible for prostate cancer patients with seminal vesicles included in the target volume. The UPRATE trial outcome will reveal the extent to which online adaptation can reduce the PTV margin of the seminal vesicles.

References

Widmark A, Gunnlaugsson A, Beckman L, Thellenberg-Karlsson C, Hoyer M, Lagerlund M . Ultra-hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the HYPO-RT-PC randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2019; 394(10196):385-395. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31131-6. View

Tetar S, Bruynzeel A, Lagerwaard F, Slotman B, Bohoudi O, Palacios M . Clinical implementation of magnetic resonance imaging guided adaptive radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2021; 9:69-76. PMC: 7807673. DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2019.02.002. View

Thornqvist S, Hysing L, Zolnay A, Sohn M, Hoogeman M, Muren L . Treatment simulations with a statistical deformable motion model to evaluate margins for multiple targets in radiotherapy for high-risk prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2013; 109(3):344-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2013.09.012. View

Akdag O, Borman P, Woodhead P, Uijtewaal P, Mandija S, van Asselen B . First experimental exploration of real-time cardiorespiratory motion management for future stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation treatments on the MR-linac. Phys Med Biol. 2022; 67(6). DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ac5717. View

Magallon-Baro A, Milder M, Granton P, Nuyttens J, Hoogeman M . Comparison of Daily Online Plan Adaptation Strategies for a Cohort of Pancreatic Cancer Patients Treated with SBRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021; 111(1):208-219. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.03.050. View

Pang E, Knight K, Fan Q, Tan S, Ang K, Master Z . Analysis of intra-fraction prostate motion and derivation of duration-dependent margins for radiotherapy using real-time 4D ultrasound. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2021; 5:102-107. PMC: 7807728. DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2018.03.008. View

Alongi F, Rigo M, Figlia V, Cuccia F, Giaj-Levra N, Nicosia L . 1.5 T MR-guided and daily adapted SBRT for prostate cancer: feasibility, preliminary clinical tolerability, quality of life and patient-reported outcomes during treatment. Radiat Oncol. 2020; 15(1):69. PMC: 7092497. DOI: 10.1186/s13014-020-01510-w. View

Rasch C, Barillot I, Remeijer P, Touw A, van Herk M, Lebesque J . Definition of the prostate in CT and MRI: a multi-observer study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999; 43(1):57-66. DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(98)00351-4. View

Milder M, Magallon-Baro A, den Toom W, de Klerck E, Luthart L, Nuyttens J . Technical feasibility of online adaptive stereotactic treatments in the abdomen on a robotic radiosurgery system. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2022; 23:103-108. PMC: 9344339. DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2022.07.005. View

10.

Elmahdy M, Jagt T, Zinkstok R, Qiao Y, Shahzad R, Sokooti H . Robust contour propagation using deep learning and image registration for online adaptive proton therapy of prostate cancer. Med Phys. 2019; 46(8):3329-3343. PMC: 6852565. DOI: 10.1002/mp.13620. View

11.

Willigenburg T, de Muinck Keizer D, Peters M, Claes A, Lagendijk J, de Boer H . Evaluation of daily online contour adaptation by radiation therapists for prostate cancer treatment on an MRI-guided linear accelerator. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2021; 27:50-56. PMC: 7822780. DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2021.01.002. View

12.

Balagopal A, Morgan H, Dohopolski M, Timmerman R, Shan J, Heitjan D . PSA-Net: Deep learning-based physician style-aware segmentation network for postoperative prostate cancer clinical target volumes. Artif Intell Med. 2021; 121:102195. DOI: 10.1016/j.artmed.2021.102195. View

13.

Fowler J . The radiobiology of prostate cancer including new aspects of fractionated radiotherapy. Acta Oncol. 2005; 44(3):265-76. DOI: 10.1080/02841860410002824. View

14.

Utsunomiya S, Yamamoto J, Tanabe S, Oishi M, Satsuma A, Kaidu M . Complementary Relation Between the Improvement of Dose Delivery Technique and PTV Margin Reduction in Dose-Escalated Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2019; 9(3):172-178. DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2019.02.001. View

15.

Stenmark M, Vineberg K, Ten Haken R, Hamstra D, Feng M . Dosimetric implications of residual seminal vesicle motion in fiducial-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Med Dosim. 2011; 37(3):240-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2011.09.002. View

16.

van de Water S, Valli L, Aluwini S, Lanconelli N, Heijmen B, Hoogeman M . Intrafraction prostate translations and rotations during hypofractionated robotic radiation surgery: dosimetric impact of correction strategies and margins. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014; 88(5):1154-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.12.045. View

17.

Leeman J, Cagney D, Mak R, Huynh M, Tanguturi S, Singer L . Magnetic Resonance-Guided Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy With Daily Online Plan Adaptation: Results of a Prospective Phase 1 Trial and Supplemental Cohort. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2022; 7(5):100934. PMC: 9280019. DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2022.100934. View

18.

de Muinck Keizer D, van der Voort van Zyp J, de Groot-van Breugel E, Raaymakers B, Lagendijk J, de Boer H . On-line daily plan optimization combined with a virtual couch shift procedure to address intrafraction motion in prostate magnetic resonance guided radiotherapy. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2021; 19:90-95. PMC: 8327343. DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2021.07.010. View

19.

Bayman N, Wylie J . When should the seminal vesicles be included in the target volume in prostate radiotherapy?. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2007; 19(5):302-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2007.03.005. View

20.

Fuller D, Falchook A, Crabtree T, Kane B, Medbery C, Underhill K . Phase 2 Multicenter Trial of Heterogeneous-dosing Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Low- and Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: 5-year Outcomes. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019; 1(6):540-547. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.06.013. View