ESTRO 2020 Abstract book

S295 ESTRO 2020

parameters were extracted. Blood cell nadir involving hemoglobin, white blood cell (WBC), platelet and absolute neutrophil count (ANC) were collected and HT was graded according to CTCAE v5. Association between clinical and dosimetric variables and HT grade 2 or above (> 2) were tested using logistic regression analysis. P-value < 0.05 indicated statistically significance. 20 patients were further selected for dosimetric comparison between BMS- VMAT and 3DCRT generated using Eclipse planning system. Conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) to planning target volume (PTV) were analyzed. DV parameters to PTVs, PBM, bladder, bowel space (BS) and femoral heads (FH) were compared using Wilcoxon Signed- Ranks Test and statistical significance was considered when p <0.05. Results The incidence of anemia ≥2, leukopenia ≥2 and neutropenia ≥2 were 20.6%, 35.4% and 26.5%, respectively. Sex and PBM-V40 was found associated with leukopenia ≥ 2 and anemia > 2 respectively. Female patients were more likely to have leukopenia > 2. Increased PBM-V40 was correlated with a higher likelihood to develop anemia > 2. In dosimetric comparison of BMS-VMAT and 3DCRT, similar dose coverage and HI of PTVs were obtained (p> 0.05) while CI was found significantly higher in BMS-VMAT (p<0.05). Moreover, dose to PBM, bladder, BS and FHs were significantly reduced in BMS-VMAT compared with 3DCRT (p<0.05). Dose to PBM-V40 decreased by 48% in BMS-VMAT which was believed to lower the risk of anemia > 2 development (p <0.05). Conclusion Gender was found to be associated with the risk of having leukopenia > 2 whereas PBM V40 was shown to be a potential predictor for anemia > 2 since there were correlation between PBM V40 and anemia > 2. This study also demonstrated that BMS-VMAT could be effectively reduce the dose to pelvic bone marrows, bladder, bowel space and femoral heads. Therefore, BMS-VMAT was recommended for reducing bone marrow dose in neoadjuvant concurrent CRT. PH-0487 Analysis of treatment times and workflow at a 1.5 T MR Linac A. Stolte 1 , J. Boldt 1 , C. Marks 1 , C. Gani 1,2 , M. Nachbar 3 , C. De-Colle 1 , N. Weidner 1 , A. Mueller 1,2 , D. Thorwarth 2,3 , D. Zips 1,2 , S. Boeke 1,2 1 University Hospital and Medical Faculty. Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Department of Radiation Oncology, Tübingen, Germany ; 2 German Cancer Consortium DKTK- partner site Tübingen, and German Cancer Research Center DKFZ, Heidelberg, Germany ; 3 University Hospital and Medical Faculty. Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Section for Biomedical Physics. Department of Radiation Oncology, Tübingen, Germany Purpose or Objective MR-Linac (MRL) hybrid devices are a new development in radiation oncology. The unique workflow and specific time management represent a challenge for all involved professions (RTTs, physicists and physicians). Herein we present the data of our prospective workflow analysis for the first 80 patients treated at a high-field MRL. Material and Methods Duration of all the daily working steps at the MRL was prospectively collected since the beginning of treatments in September 2018 for all patients by the responsible RTT. Indications for treatment at the MRL were: seven lymph node metastasis, 17 liver metastasis, seven head and neck cancers, eleven rectal cancers, three bladder cancers, 14

prostate cancers, three pancreatic cancers, eleven partial breast irradiation and four patients with various indications. Two adaptation methods are available at the MRL: the adapt-to-position (ATP) workflow consists of an isocenter shift depending on the image fusion offset for each segment followed by a segment weight optimization. The adapt-to-shape (ATS) workflow includes after image registration a contour propagation step in the workflow with the possibility to re-contour relevant structures on the daily MR followed by a constraint based re- optimization starting from the fluence map. Treatment times needed for each working step (cf. table 1) were analyzed independently for ATS- and ATP-based RT adaptation workflows. Differences between ATP and ATS were assessed with T-Test in Matlab ver. 2019a. Results ATS was mainly used for prostate and bladder cancer and for RT of lymph node metastasis. Mean in-room time (range) was 32.1 min (22.8-44.8) and 45.0 min (34.7-62.6) for ATP and ATS (p<0.001), respectively. Mean beam on time was 5.3 min (2.3-15) and 4.9 minutes (3.0-9.8) for ATP and ATS, respectively. Beam on time was depending on the absolute dose delivered, with a maximum of 15 min for a single dose of 15 Gy and overall comparable to standard linacs. Mean time for image fusion, contouring and plan adaptation was significantly longer for ATS with 5.0 min (2.8–11.5) and 19.7 min (11.7–35.2) for ATP and ATS (p<0.001), respectively. Also plan assessment takes longer for ATS (p=0.03), whereas increased times for post- RT imaging is due to entity specific imaging protocols. An overview of all gathered mean times for the different working steps of the two adaptation methods is shown in table 1 and figure 1.

Conclusion A large intra- and interpatient variability was seen in the analysis. As expected the difference between ATP and ATS arose mainly from image fusion, contouring and plan adaptation taking about 15 min longer in ATS, due to the complexity of the procedure. The new processes and close inter-professional cooperation at the MRL were quickly implemented for daily clinical routine.