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:BackgroundPencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy offers dosimetric advantages for several treatment sites, including head and neck (H&N). However, to achieve the optimal target coverage and robustness, these plans can be complex and time consuming to develop and optimize. Automating the treatment planning process can ensure a high-quality and standardized plan, reduce burden to the planner, and decrease time-to-treatment. We utilized in-house scripting to automate a four-field multi-field optimization (MFO) H&N planning technique.Methods and materialsTen bilateral H&N patients were planned in RayStation v6 with a four-field modified-X beam configuration using MFO planning. Automation included creation of avoidance structures to control spot placement and development of standardized beams, PBS spot settings, robust optimization objectives, and patient-specific predicted planning constraints. Each patient was planned both with and without automation to evaluate differences in planning time, perceived effort and plan quality, plan robustness, and OAR sparing.ResultsOn average, scripted plans required 3.2 h, compared to 4.3 h without the script. There was no difference in target coverage or plan robustness with or without automation. Automation significantly reduced mean dose to the oral cavity, parotids, esophagus, trachea, and larynx. Perceived effort was scaled from 1 (minimum effort) to 100 (maximum effort), and automation reduced perceived effort by 42% (p < 0.05). Two non-scripted plans required re-planning due to errors.ConclusionsAutomation of this multi-beam, the MFO proton planning process reduced planning time and improved OAR sparing compared to the same planning process without scripting. Scripting generation of complex structures and planning objectives reduced burden on the planner. With most current treatment planning software, this automation is simple to implement and can standardize quality of care across all treatment planners.

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.

Project description:PurposeA planning strategy was developed and the utility of online-adaptation with the Ethos CBCT-guided ring-gantry adaptive radiotherapy (ART) system was evaluated using retrospective data from Head-and-neck (H&N) patients that required clinical offline adaptation during treatment.MethodsClinical data were used to re-plan 20 H&N patients (10 sequential boost (SEQ) with separate base and boost plans plus 10 simultaneous integrated boost (SIB)). An optimal approach, robust to online adaptation, for Ethos-initial plans using clinical goal prioritization was developed. Anatomically-derived isodose-shaping helper structures, air-density override, goals for controlling hotspot location(s), and plan normalization were investigated. Online adaptation was simulated using clinical offline adaptive simulation-CTs to represent an on-treatment CBCT. Dosimetric comparisons were based on institutional guidelines for Clinical-initial versus Ethos-initial plans and Ethos-scheduled versus Ethos-adapted plans. Timing for five components of the online adaptive workflow was analyzed.ResultsThe Ethos H&N planning approach generated Ethos-initial SEQ plans with clinically comparable PTV coverage (average PTVHigh V100% = 98.3%, Dmin,0.03cc = 97.9% and D0.03cc = 105.5%) and OAR sparing. However, Ethos-initial SIB plans were clinically inferior (average PTVHigh V100% = 96.4%, Dmin,0.03cc = 93.7%, D0.03cc = 110.6%). Fixed-field IMRT was superior to VMAT for 93.3% of plans. Online adaptation succeeded in achieving conformal coverage to the new anatomy in both SEQ and SIB plans that was even superior to that achieved in the initial plans (which was due to the changes in anatomy that simplified the optimization). The average adaptive workflow duration for SIB, SEQ base and SEQ boost was 30:14, 22.56, and 14:03 (min: sec), respectively.ConclusionsWith an optimal planning approach, Ethos efficiently auto-generated dosimetrically comparable and clinically acceptable initial SEQ plans for H&N patients. Initial SIB plans were inferior and clinically unacceptable, but adapted SIB plans became clinically acceptable. Online adapted plans optimized dose to new anatomy and maintained target coverage/homogeneity with improved OAR sparing in a time-efficient manner.