# Daily online adaptation enhances target coverage in prostate cancer radiotherapy: a retrospective analysis

## TL;DR

Daily online adaptation in prostate cancer radiotherapy improves target coverage and treatment consistency without harming nearby healthy tissues.

## Contribution

The study demonstrates that online adaptive radiotherapy significantly improves target dose metrics compared to non-adapted plans in a real-world clinical setting.

## Key findings

- Adapted plans met target coverage constraints in 418 out of 422 fractions, compared to only 41%-84% with non-adapted plans.
- Adapted plans showed median absolute improvements of 1.5 to 6.0 percentage points in dose-volume metrics.
- Organ-at-risk metrics remained largely unchanged or showed only minor differences with adapted plans.

## Abstract

Online adaptive radiotherapy aims to improve treatment quality by accounting for inter-fractional variation in anatomy. This study presents a quantitative comparison between adapted and non-adapted scheduled plans with identical margins in a real-world clinical setting.

We retrospectively analyzed 422 fractions from 43 patients with prostate cancer treated with the Varian Ethos system. All patients received hypofractionated treatment with 3 Gy per fraction up to a cumulative dose of 60 Gy. For each fraction, the scheduled plan (planned on planning CT, calculated on synthetic CT derived from daily cone beam CT) was compared to the adapted plan (planned and calculated on actual daily anatomy) by means of several dose-volume metrics. Comparative statistics regarding dose-volume metrics were performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test for paired data with a two-sided hypothesis.

Adapted plans delivered significantly better target coverage, conformality, and homo-geneity than scheduled plans. The constraints D95% ≥ 95% and V95% ≥ 95% were met in 418 out of 422 fractions with the adapted plan, compared to only 41%-84% of fractions with the scheduled plan. Median absolute improvements for these metrics ranged between 1.5 and 6.0 percentage points. Most organ-at-risk metrics remained unchanged or showed only minor differences. Interquartile ranges decreased across all metrics.

Adaptation significantly improved target dose metrics compared to non-adapted plans, without compromising organs-at-risk sparing. Interquartile ranges were reduced for all metrics evidencing better repeatability of adapted plans.