Balancing Tumor Control and Protecting Healthy Tissue in Radiotherapy Dosage Optimization
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/hl2025824Keywords:
Radiotherapy Optimization, Tumor Control, Healthy Tissue Protection, Dose Distribution, Personalized Treatment PlanningAbstract
Radiotherapy is an important part of treating cancer because it stops tumors from growing while hurting good cells around them as little as possible. The treatment goal is to give enough radiation to effectively target and kill cancer cells while saving normal tissue from harmful side effects. Optimizing the dose of radiation is a key part of achieving this careful balance. This paper talks about the ideas, problems, and progress made in figuring out the best radiation doses to kill tumors and protect good tissue at the same time. In the past, radiation treatment doses were set by regular guidelines that took into account things like the type, size, and position of the growth. But these methods don't always take into account how different patients' bodies are, how the tumor's environment changes, or how healthy cells change when they are exposed to radiation. To fix this, individual treatment planning, made possible by improvements in imaging methods such as functional MRI and PET scans, is becoming more and more important for finding the best dose. These tools give us a more complete picture of the tumor's location and biology in real time, which can help us apply radiation more precisely. New methods, like intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), proton treatment, and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), have made dose distribution more accurate. This means that bigger amounts can be sent to tumors while exposing healthy tissue nearby less. Biological models and dose-painting techniques are also becoming more popular. In these methods, the radiation dose is changed in different parts of the tumor based on how different they are, which makes the treatment even more effective. Even with these improvements, one of the biggest problems still is finding the best balance between the competing goals of controlling tumors and keeping healthy organs safe.
References
[1] Cardenas, C.E.; Yang, J.; Anderson, B.M.; Court, L.E.; Brock, K.B. Advances in Auto-Segmentation. Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 2019, 29, 185–197.
[2] Fu, Y.; Lei, Y.; Wang, T.; Curran, W.J.; Liu, T.; Yang, X. Deep learning in medical image registration: A review. Phys. Med. Biol. 2020, 65, 20TR01.
[3] Chen, L.; Liang, X.; Shen, C.; Jiang, S.; Wang, J. Synthetic CT generation from CBCT images via deep learning. Med. Phys. 2020, 47, 1115–1125.
[4] Wang, C.; Zhu, X.; Hong, J.C.; Zheng, D. Artificial Intelligence in Radiotherapy Treatment Planning: Present and Future. Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 2019, 18, 153303381987392.
[5] Chan, M.F.; Witztum, A.; Valdes, G. Integration of AI and Machine Learning in Radiotherapy QA. Front. Artif. Intell. 2020, 3, 577620.
[6] Desideri, I.; Loi, M.; Francolini, G.; Becherini, C.; Livi, L.; Bonomo, P. Application of Radiomics for the Prediction of Radiation-Induced Toxicity in the IMRT Era: Current State-of-the-Art. Front. Oncol. 2020, 10, 1708.
[7] Isaksson, L.J.; Pepa, M.; Zaffaroni, M.; Marvaso, G.; Alterio, D.; Volpe, S.; Corrao, G.; Augugliaro, M.; Starzyńska, A.; Leonardi, M.C.; et al. Machine Learning-Based Models for Prediction of Toxicity Outcomes in Radiotherapy. Front. Oncol. 2020, 10, 790.
[8] Keall, P.J.; Glide-Hurst, C.K.; Cao, M.; Lee, P.; Murray, B.; Raaymakers, B.W.; Tree, A.; van der Heide, U.A. ICRU REPORT 97: MRI-Guided Radiation Therapy Using MRI-Linear Accelerators. J. ICRU 2022, 22, 1–100.
[9] Bohoudi, O.; Bruynzeel, A.; Senan, S.; Cuijpers, J.; Slotman, B.; Lagerwaard, F.; Palacios, M. Fast and robust online adaptive planning in stereotactic MR-guided adaptive radiation therapy (SMART) for pancreatic cancer. Radiother. Oncol. 2017, 125, 439–444.
[10] Güngör, G.; Serbez, I.; Temur, B.; Gür, G.; Kayalılar, N.; Mustafayev, T.Z.; Korkmaz, L.; Aydın, G.; Yapıcı, B.; Atalar, B.; et al. Time Analysis of Online Adaptive Magnetic Resonance–Guided Radiation Therapy Workflow According to Anatomical Sites. Pract. Radiat. Oncol. 2021, 11, e11–e21.
[11] Lim, S.B.; Godoy Scripes, P.; Napolitano, M.; Subashi, E.; Tyagi, N.; Cervino Arriba, L.; Lovelock, D.M. An investigation of using log-file analysis for automated patient-specific quality assurance in MRgRT. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 2021, 22, 183–188.
[12] Liu, H.; Schaal, D.; Curry, H.; Clark, R.; Magliari, A.; Kupelian, P.; Khuntia, D.; Beriwal, S. Review of cone beam computed tomography based online adaptive radiotherapy: Current trend and future direction. Radiat. Oncol. 2023, 18, 144.
[13] O’Hara, C.J.; Bird, D.; Al-Qaisieh, B.; Speight, R. Assessment of CBCT–based synthetic CT generation accuracy for adaptive radiotherapy planning. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 2022, 23, S342–S343.
[14] Schiff, J.P.; Price, A.T.; Stowe, H.B.; Laugeman, E.; Chin, R.-I.; Hatscher, C.; Pryser, E.; Cai, B.; Hugo, G.D.; Kim, H.; et al. Simulated computed tomography-guided stereotactic adaptive radiotherapy (CT-STAR) for the treatment of locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Radiother. Oncol. 2022, 175, 144–151.
[15] Byrne, M.; Archibald-Heeren, B.; Hu, Y.; Teh, A.; Beserminji, R.; Cai, E.; Liu, G.; Yates, A.; Rijken, J.; Collett, N.; et al. Varian ethos online adaptive radiotherapy for prostate cancer: Early results of contouring accuracy, treatment plan quality, and treatment time. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 2022, 23, e13479.
[16] Moazzezi, M.; Rose, B.; Kisling, K.; Moore, K.L.; Ray, X. Prospects for daily online adaptive radiotherapy via ethos for prostate cancer patients without nodal involvement using unedited CBCT auto-segmentation. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 2021, 22, 82–93.
[17] Branco, D.; Mayadev, J.; Moore, K.; Ray, X. Dosimetric and feasibility evaluation of a CBCT-based daily adaptive radiotherapy protocol for locally advanced cervical cancer. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 2023, 24, e13783.
[18] Håkansson, K.; Giannoulis, E.; Lindegaard, A.; Friborg, J.; Vogelius, I. CBCT-based online adaptive radiotherapy for head and neck cancer—Dosimetric evaluation of first clinical experience. Acta Oncol. 2023, 62, 1369–1374.
[19] Yen, A.; Choi, B.; Inam, E.; Yeh, A.; Lin, M.; Park, C.; Hrycushko, B.; Nwachukwu, C.; Albuquerque, K. Spare the Bowel, Don’t Spoil the Target: Optimal Margin Assessment for Online Cone Beam Adaptive Radiation Therapy (OnC-ART) of the Cervix. Pract. Radiat. Oncol. 2023, 13, e176–e183.
[20] Yock, A.D.; Ahmed, M.; Ayala-Peacock, D.; Chakravarthy, A.B.; Price, M. Initial analysis of the dosimetric benefit and clinical resource cost of CBCT-based online adaptive radiotherapy for patients with cancers of the cervix or rectum. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 2021, 22, 210–221.
[21] Shelley, C.E.; Bolt, M.A.; Hollingdale, R.; Chadwick, S.J.; Barnard, A.P.; Rashid, M.; Reinlo, S.C.; Fazel, N.; Thorpe, C.R.; Stewart, A.J.; et al. Implementing cone-beam computed tomography-guided online adaptive radiotherapy in cervical cancer. Clin. Transl. Radiat. Oncol. 2023, 40, 100596.
[22] Dial, C.; Weiss, E.; Siebers, J.V.; Hugo, G.D. Benefits of adaptive radiation therapy in lung cancer as a function of replanning frequency. Med. Phys. 2016, 43, 1787–1794.
[23] Mao, W.; Riess, J.; Kim, J.; Vance, S.; Chetty, I.J.; Movsas, B.; Kretzler, A. Evaluation of Auto-Contouring and Dose Distributions for Online Adaptive Radiation Therapy of Patients with Locally Advanced Lung Cancers. Pract. Radiat. Oncol. 2022, 12, e329–e338.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Rashmi Gudur, Girish S, Swati Mishra, Arpit Arora, Syed Farhan, Mano Priya Vijayan, Jagtej Singh (Author)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.