The Varian Ethos system allows for online adaptive treatments through the utilization of artificial intelligence (AI) and deformable image registration which automates large parts of the anatomical contouring and plan optimization process. In this study, treatments of intact prostate and prostate bed, with and without nodes, were simulated for 182 online adaptive fractions, and then a further 184 clinical fractions were delivered on the Ethos system. Frequency and magnitude of contour edits were recorded, as well as a range of plan quality metrics. From the fractions analyzed, 11% of AI generated contours, known as influencer contours, required no change, and 81% required minor edits in any given fraction. The frequency of target and noninfluencer organs at risk (OAR) contour editing varied substantially between different targets and noninfluencer OARs, although across all targets 72% of cases required no edits. The adaptive plan was the preference in 95% of fractions. The adaptive plan met more goals than the scheduled plan in 78% of fractions, while in 15% of fractions the number of goals met was the same. The online adaptive recontouring and replanning process was carried out in 19 min on average. Significant improvements in dosimetry are possible with the Ethos online adaptive system in prostate radiotherapy.

Purpose CT ventilation imaging (CTVI) is being used to achieve functional avoidance lung cancer radiation therapy in three clinical trials (NCT02528942, NCT02308709, NCT02843568). To address the need for common CTVI validation tools, we have built the Ventilation And Medical Pulmonary Image Registration Evaluation (VAMPIRE) Dataset, and present the results of the first VAMPIRE Challenge to compare relative ventilation distributions between different CTVI algorithms and other established ventilation imaging modalities. Methods The VAMPIRE Dataset includes 50 pairs of 4DCT scans and corresponding clinical or experimental ventilation scans, referred to as reference ventilation images (RefVIs). The dataset includes 25 humans imaged with Galligas 4DPET/CT, 21 humans imaged with DTPA‐SPECT, and 4 sheep imaged with Xenon‐CT. For the VAMPIRE Challenge, 16 subjects were allocated to a training group (with RefVI provided) and 34 subjects were allocated to a validation group (with RefVI blinded). Seven research groups downloaded the Challenge dataset and uploaded CTVIs based on deformable image registration (DIR) between the 4DCT inhale/exhale phases. Participants used DIR methods broadly classified into B‐splines, Free‐form, Diffeomorphisms, or Biomechanical modeling, with CT ventilation metrics based on the DIR evaluation of volume change, Hounsfield Unit change, or various hybrid approaches. All CTVIs were evaluated against the corresponding RefVI using the voxel‐wise Spearman coefficient rS, and Dice similarity coefficients evaluated for low function lung (DSClow) and high function lung (DSChigh). Results A total of 37 unique combinations of DIR method and CT ventilation metric were either submitted by participants directly or derived from participant‐submitted DIR motion fields using the in‐house software, VESPIR. The rS and DSC results reveal a high degree of inter‐algorithm and intersubject variability among the validation subjects, with algorithm rankings changing by up to ten positions depending on the choice of evaluation metric. The algorithm with the highest overall cross‐modality correlations used a biomechanical model‐based DIR with a hybrid ventilation metric, achieving a median (range) of 0.49 (0.27–0.73) for rS, 0.52 (0.36–0.67) for DSClow, and 0.45 (0.28–0.62) for DSChigh. All other algorithms exhibited at least one negative rS value, and/or one DSC value less than 0.5. Conclusions The VAMPIRE Challenge results demonstrate that the cross‐modality correlation between CTVIs and the RefVIs varies not only with the choice of CTVI algorithm but also with the choice of RefVI modality, imaging subject, and the evaluation metric used to compare relative ventilation distributions. This variability may arise from the fact that each of the different CTVI algorithms and RefVI modalities provides a distinct physiologic measurement. Ultimately this variability, coupled with the lack of a “gold standard,” highlights the ongoing importance of further validation studies before CTVI can be widely translated from academic ce...

When planning breast IMRT, the distance of the CTV from the patient external surface is often less than the PTV margin required, presenting difficulties for ensuring CTV coverage. Several techniques have been proposed to ensure coverage in this scenario, one of which is robust optimisation; a technique that simultaneously optimises a plan in multiple geometries representing the worst case setup error expected. A range of plans were created utilising opposed tangential beams and these differing planning techniques, and were delivered and computed at 5 and 10 mm offsets perpendicular to the beam axes. The accuracy of dose computation was verified with a scintillator and film, and the surface dose coverage was evaluated for each of the plans in the offset positions. When 10 mm robust optimisation was used the CTV minimum, maximum and mean dose at the 5 and 10 mm offset locations were all within 3 % of those at the no offset setup. Robust optimisation was found to be comparable to other established planning methods for ensuring coverage of the breast CTV with setup variations.

Background The automated and integrated machine performance check (MPC) tool was verified against independent detectors to evaluate its beam uniformity and output detection abilities to consider it suitable for daily quality assurance (QA). Methods Measurements were carried out on six linear accelerators (each located at six individual sites) using clinically available photon and electron energies for a period up to 12 months (n = 350). Daily constancy checks on beam symmetry and output were compared against independent devices such as the SNC Daily QA 3, PTW Farmer ionization chamber, and SNC field size QA phantom. MPC uniformity detection of beam symmetry adjustments was also assessed. Sensitivity of symmetry and output measurements were assessed using statistical process control (SPC) methods to derive tolerances for daily machine QA and baseline resets to account for drifts in output readings. I‐charts were used to evaluate systematic and nonsystematic trends to improve error detection capabilities based on calculated upper and lower control levels (UCL/LCL) derived using standard deviations from the mean dataset. Results This study investigated the vendor's method of uniformity detection. Calculated mean uniformity variations were within ± 0.5% of Daily QA 3 vertical symmetry measurements. Mean MPC output variations were within ± 1.5% of Daily QA 3 and ±0.5% of Farmer ionization chamber detected variations. SPC calculated UCL values were a measure of change observed in the output detected for both MPC and Daily QA 3. Conclusions Machine performance check was verified as a daily quality assurance tool to check machine output and symmetry while assessing against an independent detector on a weekly basis. MPC output detection can be improved by regular SPC‐based trend analysis to measure drifts in the inherent device and control systematic and random variations thereby increasing confidence in its capabilities as a QA device. A 3‐monthly MPC calibration assessment was recommended based on SPC capability and acceptability calculations.