Author: Emily Hansen, Jay Mistry, Alois M. Ndlovu, Niara Rowe, Roland Teboh 👨🔬
Affiliation: Hackensack University Medical Center 🌍
Purpose: SCINTIX Biology-guided radiotherapy (BgRT) on the RefleXion X1 relies on a new planning system and advanced planning techniques. The first patient SCINTIX BgRT plans are compared to similar clinically acceptable TrueBeam plans to evaluate statistically significant differences between the plans.
Methods: The first patients treated with SCINTIX BgRT for lung tumors were planned on the RefleXion X1 planning system, and each patient had a comparable TrueBeam plan prepared in Eclipse as a backup. Both plans were evaluated based on the same metrics, focusing on PTV coverage, Conformality Index, High Dose Spillage, Gradient Index (GI), Total Monitor Units (MU), and Total Beam-on Time (BOT). Statistical analyses were performed to identify significant differences between the plans.
Results: The most statistically significant differences (p < 0.0001) were noted in the Gradient Index (GI), Total Monitor Units (MU), and Total Beam-on Time (BOT), all of which favored the TrueBeam plans. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were also observed in the Conformality Index and High Dose Spillage, again favoring the TrueBeam plans. No significant differences were observed regarding PTV coverage, maximum hot spot, and quality assurance pass rate between the two plans.
Conclusion: Both SCINTIX BgRT and TrueBeam plans were found to be clinically acceptable treatment. However, the TrueBeam plans exhibited significantly better performance in terms of gradient index, monitor units, and beam on time. The SCINTIX plans, while still clinically acceptable, were less favorable in these key metrics, highlighting areas for potential improvement in the BgRT planning process.