Dataset Information

Reducing variability among treatment machines using knowledge-based planning for head and neck, pancreatic, and rectal cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

This study aimed to assess dosimetric indices of RapidPlan model-based plans for different energies (6, 8, 10, and 15 MV; 6- and 10-MV flattening filter-free), multileaf collimator (MLC) types (Millennium 120, High Definition 120, dual-layer MLC), and disease sites (head and neck, pancreatic, and rectal cancer) and compare these parameters with those of clinical plans.

Methods

RapidPlan models in the Eclipse version 15.6 were used with the data of 28, 42, and 20 patients with head and neck, pancreatic, and rectal cancer, respectively. RapidPlan models of head and neck, pancreatic, and rectal cancer were created for TrueBeam STx (High Definition 120) with 6 MV, TrueBeam STx with 10-MV flattening filter-free, and Clinac iX (Millennium 120) with 15 MV, respectively. The models were used to create volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans for a 10-patient test dataset using all energy and MLC types at all disease sites. The Holm test was used to compare multiple dosimetric indices in different treatment machines and energy types.

Results

The dosimetric indices for planning target volume and organs at risk in RapidPlan model-based plans were comparable to those in the clinical plan. Furthermore, no dose difference was observed among the RapidPlan models. The variability among RapidPlan models was consistent regardless of the treatment machines, MLC types, and energy.

Conclusions

Dosimetric indices of RapidPlan model-based plans appear to be comparable to the ones based on clinical plans regardless of energies, MLC types, and disease sites. The results suggest that the RapidPlan model can generate treatment plans independent of the type of treatment machine.

SUBMITTER: Hirashima H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8292706 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo develop a tradeoff hyperplane model to facilitate tradeoff decision-making before inverse planning.Methods and materialsWe propose a model-based approach to determine the tradeoff hyperplanes that allow physicians to navigate the clinically viable space of plans with best achievable dose-volume parameters before planning. For a given case, a case reference set (CRS) is selected using a novel anatomic similarity metric from a large reference plan pool. Then, a regression model is built on the CRS to estimate the expected dose-volume histograms (DVHs) for the current case. This model also predicts the DVHs for all CRS cases and captures the variation from the corresponding DVHs in the clinical plans. Finally, these DVH variations are analyzed using the principal component analysis to determine the tradeoff hyperplane for the current case. To evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed approach, 244 head and neck cases were randomly partitioned into reference (214) and validation (30) sets. A tradeoff hyperplane was built for each validation case and evenly sampled for 12 tradeoff predictions. Each prediction yielded a tradeoff plan. The root-mean-square errors of the predicted and the realized plan DVHs were computed for prediction achievability evaluation.ResultsThe tradeoff hyperplane with 3 principal directions accounts for 57.8% ± 3.6% of variations in the validation cases, suggesting the hyperplanes capture a significant portion of the clinical tradeoff space. The average root-mean-square errors in 3 tradeoff directions are 5.23 ± 2.46, 5.20 ± 2.52, and 5.19 ± 2.49, compared with 4.96 ± 2.48 of the knowledge-based planning predictions, indicating that the tradeoff predictions are comparably achievable.ConclusionsClinically relevant tradeoffs can be effectively extracted from existing plans and characterized by a tradeoff hyperplane model. The hyperplane allows physicians and planners to explore the best clinically achievable plans with different organ-at-risk sparing goals before inverse planning and is a natural extension of the current knowledge-based planning framework.

Project description:Head and neck cancers centered at the base of skull are better visualized on MRI than on CT. The purpose of this investigation was to investigate the accuracy of bulk density assignment in head and neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plan optimization. Our study investigates dose calculation differences between density-assigned MRI and CT, and identifies potential limitations related to dental implants and MRI geometrical distortion in the framework of MRI-only-based treatment planning. Bulk density assignment was performed and applied onto MRI to generate three MRI image sets with increasing levels of heterogeneity for seven patients: 1) MRIW: all water-equivalent; 2) MRIW+B: included bone with density of 1.53 g/cm3; and 3) MRIW+B+A: included bone and air. Using identical planning and optimization parameters, MRI-based IMRT plans were generated and compared to corresponding, forward-calculated, CT-based plans on the basis of target coverage, isodose distributions, and dose-volume histograms (DVHs). Phantom studies were performed to assess the magnitude and spatial dependence of MRI geometrical distortion. MRIW-based dose calculations overestimated target coverage by 16.1%. Segmentation of bone reduced differences to within 2% of the coverage area on the CT-based plan. Further segmentation of air improved conformity near air-tissue interfaces. Dental artifacts caused substantial target coverage overestimation even on MRIW+B+A. Geometrical distortion was less than 1 mm in an imaging volume 20 × 20 × 20 cm3 around scanner isocenter, but up to 4 mm at 17 cm lateral to isocenter. Bulk density assignment in the framework of MRI-only IMRT head and neck treatment planning is a feasible method with certain limitations. Bone and teeth account for the majority of density heterogeneity effects. While soft tissue is well visualized on MRI compared to CT, dental implants may not be visible on MRI and must be identified by other means and assigned appropriate density for accurate dose calculation. Far off-center geometrical distortion of the body contour near the shoulder region is a potential source of dose calculation inaccuracy.