Dataset Information

Clinical impact of the VOLO optimizer on treatment plan quality and clinical treatment efficiency for CyberKnife.

ABSTRACT: With the recent CyberKnife treatment planning system (TPS) upgrade from Precision 1.0 to Precision 2.0, the new VOLO optimizer was released for plan optimization. The VOLO optimizer sought to overcome some of the limitations seen with the Sequential optimizer from previous TPS versions. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical impact of the VOLO optimizer on treatment plan quality and clinical treatment efficiency as compared to the Sequential optimizer. Treatment plan quality was evaluated in four categories of patients: Brain Simple (BS), Brain Complex (BC), Spine Complex (SC), and Prostate (PC). A total of 60 treatment plans were compared using both the Sequential and VOLO optimizers with Iris and MLC collimation with the same clinical constraints. Metrics evaluated included estimated treatment time, monitor units (MUs) delivered, conformity index (CI), and gradient index (GI). Furthermore, the clinical impact of the VOLO optimizer was evaluated through statistical analysis of the patient population treated during the 4 months before (n = 297) and 4 months after (n = 285) VOLO introduction. Significant MU and time reductions were observed for all four categories planned. MU reduction ranged from -14% (BS Iris) to -52% (BC MLC), and time reduction ranged from -11% (BS Iris) to -22% (BC MLC). The statistical analysis of patient population before and after VOLO introduction for patients using 6D Skull tracking with fixed cone, 6D Skull tracking with Iris, and Xsight Spine tracking with Iris were -4.6%, -22.2%, and -17.8% for treatment time reduction, -1.1%, -22.0%, and -28.4% for beam reduction and -3.2%, -21.8%, and -28.1% for MU reduction, respectively. The VOLO optimizer maintains or improves the plan quality while decreases the plan complexity and improves treatment efficiency. We anticipate an increase in patient throughput with the introduction of the VOLO optimizer.

SUBMITTER: Schuler E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7286021 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical impact of the VOLO optimizer on treatment plan quality and clinical treatment efficiency for CyberKnife.

Schüler Emil E Lo Anthony A Chuang Cynthia F CF Soltys Scott G SG Pollom Erqi L EL Wang Lei L

Journal of applied clinical medical physics 20200325 5

With the recent CyberKnife treatment planning system (TPS) upgrade from Precision 1.0 to Precision 2.0, the new VOLO optimizer was released for plan optimization. The VOLO optimizer sought to overcome some of the limitations seen with the Sequential optimizer from previous TPS versions. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical impact of the VOLO optimizer on treatment plan quality and clinical treatment efficiency as compared to the Sequential optimizer. Treatment plan quality w ...[more]

PMID: 32212374

Similar Datasets

Project description:Plan degradation resulting from compromises made to enhance delivery efficiency is an important consideration for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plans. IMRT optimization and/or multileaf collimator (MLC) sequencing schemes can be modified to generate more efficient treatment delivery, but the effect those modifications have on plan quality is often difficult to quantify. In this work, the authors present a method for quantitative assessment of overall plan quality degradation due to tradeoffs between delivery efficiency and treatment plan quality, illustrated using comparisons between plans developed allowing different numbers of intensity levels in IMRT optimization and/or MLC sequencing for static segmental MLC IMRT plans.A plan quality degradation method to evaluate delivery efficiency and plan quality tradeoffs was developed and used to assess planning for 14 prostate and 12 head and neck patients treated with static IMRT. Plan quality was evaluated using a physician's predetermined "quality degradation" factors for relevant clinical plan metrics associated with the plan optimization strategy. Delivery efficiency and plan quality were assessed for a range of optimization and sequencing limitations. The "optimal" (baseline) plan for each case was derived using a clinical cost function with an unlimited number of intensity levels. These plans were sequenced with a clinical MLC leaf sequencer which uses >100 segments, assuring delivered intensities to be within 1% of the optimized intensity pattern. Each patient's optimal plan was also sequenced limiting the number of intensity levels (20, 10, and 5), and then separately optimized with these same numbers of intensity levels. Delivery time was measured for all plans, and direct evaluation of the tradeoffs between delivery time and plan degradation was performed.When considering tradeoffs, the optimal number of intensity levels depends on the treatment site and on the stage in the process at which the levels are limited. The cost of improved delivery efficiency, in terms of plan quality degradation, increased as the number of intensity levels in the sequencer or optimizer decreased. The degradation was more substantial for the head and neck cases relative to the prostate cases, particularly when fewer than 20 intensity levels were used. Plan quality degradation was less severe when the number of intensity levels was limited in the optimizer rather than the sequencer.Analysis of plan quality degradation allows for a quantitative assessment of the compromises in clinical plan quality as delivery efficiency is improved, in order to determine the optimal delivery settings. The technique is based on physician-determined quality degradation factors and can be extended to other clinical situations where investigation of various tradeoffs is warranted.

Project description:ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which measures of health plan clinical performance and measures of patient perceptions of care are associated with health plan organizational characteristics, including the percentage of care provided based on a group or staff model delivery system, for-profit (tax) status, and affiliation with a national managed care firm.Data sourcesData describing health plans on region, age of health plan, for-profit status, affiliation with a national managed care firm, percentage of Medicare business, total enrollment, ratio of primary care physicians to specialists, HMO penetration, and form of health care delivery system (e.g., IPA, network, mixed, staff, group) were obtained from InterStudy. Clinical performance measures for women's health screening rates, child and adolescent immunization rates, heart disease screening rates, diabetes screening rates, and smoking cessation were developed from HEDIS data. Measures of patient perceptions of care are obtained from CAHPS survey data submitted as Healthplan Employer Data and Information Set, Consumer Assessment of Health Plans 2.0 H.Study designMultivariate regression cross-sectional analysis of 272 health plans was used to evaluate the relationship of health plan characteristics with measures of clinical performance and patient perceptions of care.Principal findingsThe form of delivery system, measured by percent of care delivered by staff and group model systems, is significantly related (p < or = .05) with four of the five clinical performance indices but none of the three satisfaction performance indices. Other variables significantly associated with performance were being geographically located in the Northeast, having nonprofit status, and for patient satisfaction, not being part of a larger insurance company.ConclusionsThese comparative results provide evidence suggesting that the type of delivery system used by health plans is related to many clinical performance measures but is not related to patient perceptions of care. These findings underscore the importance of the form of the delivery system and the need for further inquiry that examines the relationship between organizational form and performance.

Project description:This study was performed to examine the quality of planning and treatment modality using a CyberKnife (CK) robotic radiosurgery system with multileaf collimator (MLC)-based plans and IRIS (variable aperture collimator system)-based plans in relation to the dose-response of secondary cancer risk (SCR) in patients with benign intracranial tumors. The study population consisted of 15 patients with benign intracranial lesions after curative treatment using a CyberKnife M6 robotic radiosurgery system. Each patient had a single tumor with a median volume of 6.43 cm3 (range, 0.33-29.72 cm3). The IRIS-based plan quality and MLC-based plan quality were evaluated by comparing the dosimetric indices, taking into account the planning target volume (PTV) coverage, the conformity index (CI), and the dose gradient (R10% and R50%). The dose-response SCR with sarcoma/carcinoma induction was calculated using the concept of the organ equivalent dose (OED). Analyses of sarcoma/carcinoma induction were performed using excess absolute risk (EAR) and various OED models of dose-response type/lifetime attributable risk (LAR). Moreover, analyses were performed using the BEIR VII model. PTV coverage using both IRIS-based plans and MLC-based plans was identical, although the CI values obtained using the MLC-based plans showed greater statistical significance. In comparison with the IRIS-based plans, the MLC-based plans showed better dose falloff for R10% and R50% evaluation. The estimated difference between Schneider's model and BEIR VII in linear-no-threshold (Lnt) cumulative EAR was about twofold. The average values of LAR/EAR for carcinoma, for the IRIS-based plans, were 25% higher than those for the MLC-based plans using four SCR models; for sarcoma, they were 15% better in Schneider's SCR models. MLC-based plans showed slightly better conformity, dose gradients, and SCR reduction. There was a slight increase in SCR with IRIS-based plans in comparison with MLC-based plans. EAR analyses did not show any significant difference between PTV and brainstem analyses, regardless of the tumor volume. Nevertheless, an increase in target volume led to an increase in the probability of SCR. EAR showed statistically significant differences in the soft tissue according to tumor volume (1-10 cc and ≥10 cc).

Project description:BackgroundThis work aims at clinically validating a graphical tool developed for treatment plan assessment, named SPIDERplan, by comparing the plan choices based on its scoring with the radiation oncologists (RO) clinical preferences.MethodsSPIDERplan validation was performed for nasopharynx pathology in two steps. In the first step, three ROs from three Portuguese radiotherapy departments were asked to blindly evaluate and rank the dose distributions of twenty pairs of treatment plans. For plan ranking, the best plan from each pair was selected. For plan evaluation, the qualitative classification of 'Good', 'Admissible with minor deviations' and 'Not Admissible' were assigned to each plan. In the second step, SPIDERplan was applied to the same twenty patient cases. The tool was configured for two sets of structures groups: the local clinical set and the groups of structures suggested in international guidelines for nasopharynx cancer. Group weights, quantifying the importance of each group and incorporated in SPIDERplan, were defined according to RO clinical preferences and determined automatically by applying a mixed linear programming model for implicit elicitation of preferences. Intra- and inter-rater ROs plan selection and evaluation were assessed using Brennan-Prediger kappa coefficient.ResultsTwo-thirds of the plans were qualitatively evaluated by the ROs as 'Good'. Concerning intra- and inter-rater variabilities of plan selection, fair agreements were obtained for most of the ROs. For plan evaluation, substantial agreements were verified in most cases. The choice of the best plan made by SPIDERplan was identical for all sets of groups and, in most cases, agreed with RO plan selection. Differences between RO choice and SPIDERplan analysis only occurred in cases for which the score differences between the plans was very low. A score difference threshold of 0.005 was defined as the value below which two plans are considered of equivalent quality.ConclusionGenerally, SPIDERplan response successfully reproduced the ROs plan selection. SPIDERplan assessment performance can represent clinical preferences based either on manual or automatic group weight assignment. For nasopharynx cases, SPIDERplan was robust in terms of the definitions of structure groups, being able to support different configurations without losing accuracy.

Dataset Information

Clinical impact of the VOLO optimizer on treatment plan quality and clinical treatment efficiency for CyberKnife.

Publications

Clinical impact of the VOLO optimizer on treatment plan quality and clinical treatment efficiency for CyberKnife.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets