Cargando…

A study on inter‐planner plan quality variability using a manual planning‐ or Lightning dose optimizer‐approach for single brain lesions treated with the Gamma Knife(®) Icon™

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to investigate inter‐planner plan quality variability using a manual forward planning (MFP)‐ or fast inverse planning (FIP, Lightning)‐approach for single brain lesions treated with the Gamma Knife(®) (GK) Icon™. METHODS: Thirty patients who were previously trea...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lee, Yongsook C., Wieczorek, D Jay, Chaswal, Vibha, Kotecha, Rupesh, Hall, Matthew D., Tom, Martin C., Mehta, Minesh P., McDermott, Michael W., Gutierrez, Alonso N., Tolakanahalli, Ranjini
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10647977/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37415385
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14088
_version_ 1785135231182831616
author Lee, Yongsook C.
Wieczorek, D Jay
Chaswal, Vibha
Kotecha, Rupesh
Hall, Matthew D.
Tom, Martin C.
Mehta, Minesh P.
McDermott, Michael W.
Gutierrez, Alonso N.
Tolakanahalli, Ranjini
author_facet Lee, Yongsook C.
Wieczorek, D Jay
Chaswal, Vibha
Kotecha, Rupesh
Hall, Matthew D.
Tom, Martin C.
Mehta, Minesh P.
McDermott, Michael W.
Gutierrez, Alonso N.
Tolakanahalli, Ranjini
author_sort Lee, Yongsook C.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to investigate inter‐planner plan quality variability using a manual forward planning (MFP)‐ or fast inverse planning (FIP, Lightning)‐approach for single brain lesions treated with the Gamma Knife(®) (GK) Icon™. METHODS: Thirty patients who were previously treated with GK stereotactic radiosurgery or radiotherapy were selected and divided into three groups (post‐operative resection cavity, intact brain metastasis, and vestibular schwannoma [10 patients per group]). Clinical plans for the 30 patients were generated by multiple planners using FIP only (1), a combination of FIP and MFP (12), and MFP only (17). Three planners (Senior, Junior, and Novice) with varying experience levels re‐planned the 30 patients using MFP and FIP (two plans per patient) with planning time limit of 60 min. Statistical analysis was performed to compare plan quality metrics (Paddick conformity index, gradient index, number of shots, prescription isodose line, target coverage, beam‐on‐time (BOT), and organs‐at‐risk doses) of MFP or FIP plans among three planners and to compare plan quality metrics between each planner's MFP/FIP plans and clinical plans. Variability in FIP parameter settings (BOT, low dose, and target max dose) and in planning time among the planners was also evaluated. RESULTS: Variations in plan quality metrics of FIP plans among three planners were smaller than those of MFP plans for all three groups. Junior's MFP plans were the most comparable to the clinical plans, whereas Senior's and Novice's MFP plans were superior and inferior, respectively. All three planners’ FIP plans were comparable or superior to the clinical plans. Differences in FIP parameter settings among the planners were observed. Planning time was shorter and variations in planning time among the planners were smaller for FIP plans in all three groups. CONCLUSIONS: The FIP approach is less planner dependent and more time‐honored than the MFP approach.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10647977
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106479772023-07-06 A study on inter‐planner plan quality variability using a manual planning‐ or Lightning dose optimizer‐approach for single brain lesions treated with the Gamma Knife(®) Icon™ Lee, Yongsook C. Wieczorek, D Jay Chaswal, Vibha Kotecha, Rupesh Hall, Matthew D. Tom, Martin C. Mehta, Minesh P. McDermott, Michael W. Gutierrez, Alonso N. Tolakanahalli, Ranjini J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to investigate inter‐planner plan quality variability using a manual forward planning (MFP)‐ or fast inverse planning (FIP, Lightning)‐approach for single brain lesions treated with the Gamma Knife(®) (GK) Icon™. METHODS: Thirty patients who were previously treated with GK stereotactic radiosurgery or radiotherapy were selected and divided into three groups (post‐operative resection cavity, intact brain metastasis, and vestibular schwannoma [10 patients per group]). Clinical plans for the 30 patients were generated by multiple planners using FIP only (1), a combination of FIP and MFP (12), and MFP only (17). Three planners (Senior, Junior, and Novice) with varying experience levels re‐planned the 30 patients using MFP and FIP (two plans per patient) with planning time limit of 60 min. Statistical analysis was performed to compare plan quality metrics (Paddick conformity index, gradient index, number of shots, prescription isodose line, target coverage, beam‐on‐time (BOT), and organs‐at‐risk doses) of MFP or FIP plans among three planners and to compare plan quality metrics between each planner's MFP/FIP plans and clinical plans. Variability in FIP parameter settings (BOT, low dose, and target max dose) and in planning time among the planners was also evaluated. RESULTS: Variations in plan quality metrics of FIP plans among three planners were smaller than those of MFP plans for all three groups. Junior's MFP plans were the most comparable to the clinical plans, whereas Senior's and Novice's MFP plans were superior and inferior, respectively. All three planners’ FIP plans were comparable or superior to the clinical plans. Differences in FIP parameter settings among the planners were observed. Planning time was shorter and variations in planning time among the planners were smaller for FIP plans in all three groups. CONCLUSIONS: The FIP approach is less planner dependent and more time‐honored than the MFP approach. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-07-06 /pmc/articles/PMC10647977/ /pubmed/37415385 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14088 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Lee, Yongsook C.
Wieczorek, D Jay
Chaswal, Vibha
Kotecha, Rupesh
Hall, Matthew D.
Tom, Martin C.
Mehta, Minesh P.
McDermott, Michael W.
Gutierrez, Alonso N.
Tolakanahalli, Ranjini
A study on inter‐planner plan quality variability using a manual planning‐ or Lightning dose optimizer‐approach for single brain lesions treated with the Gamma Knife(®) Icon™
title A study on inter‐planner plan quality variability using a manual planning‐ or Lightning dose optimizer‐approach for single brain lesions treated with the Gamma Knife(®) Icon™
title_full A study on inter‐planner plan quality variability using a manual planning‐ or Lightning dose optimizer‐approach for single brain lesions treated with the Gamma Knife(®) Icon™
title_fullStr A study on inter‐planner plan quality variability using a manual planning‐ or Lightning dose optimizer‐approach for single brain lesions treated with the Gamma Knife(®) Icon™
title_full_unstemmed A study on inter‐planner plan quality variability using a manual planning‐ or Lightning dose optimizer‐approach for single brain lesions treated with the Gamma Knife(®) Icon™
title_short A study on inter‐planner plan quality variability using a manual planning‐ or Lightning dose optimizer‐approach for single brain lesions treated with the Gamma Knife(®) Icon™
title_sort study on inter‐planner plan quality variability using a manual planning‐ or lightning dose optimizer‐approach for single brain lesions treated with the gamma knife(®) icon™
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10647977/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37415385
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14088
work_keys_str_mv AT leeyongsookc astudyoninterplannerplanqualityvariabilityusingamanualplanningorlightningdoseoptimizerapproachforsinglebrainlesionstreatedwiththegammaknifeicon
AT wieczorekdjay astudyoninterplannerplanqualityvariabilityusingamanualplanningorlightningdoseoptimizerapproachforsinglebrainlesionstreatedwiththegammaknifeicon
AT chaswalvibha astudyoninterplannerplanqualityvariabilityusingamanualplanningorlightningdoseoptimizerapproachforsinglebrainlesionstreatedwiththegammaknifeicon
AT kotecharupesh astudyoninterplannerplanqualityvariabilityusingamanualplanningorlightningdoseoptimizerapproachforsinglebrainlesionstreatedwiththegammaknifeicon
AT hallmatthewd astudyoninterplannerplanqualityvariabilityusingamanualplanningorlightningdoseoptimizerapproachforsinglebrainlesionstreatedwiththegammaknifeicon
AT tommartinc astudyoninterplannerplanqualityvariabilityusingamanualplanningorlightningdoseoptimizerapproachforsinglebrainlesionstreatedwiththegammaknifeicon
AT mehtamineshp astudyoninterplannerplanqualityvariabilityusingamanualplanningorlightningdoseoptimizerapproachforsinglebrainlesionstreatedwiththegammaknifeicon
AT mcdermottmichaelw astudyoninterplannerplanqualityvariabilityusingamanualplanningorlightningdoseoptimizerapproachforsinglebrainlesionstreatedwiththegammaknifeicon
AT gutierrezalonson astudyoninterplannerplanqualityvariabilityusingamanualplanningorlightningdoseoptimizerapproachforsinglebrainlesionstreatedwiththegammaknifeicon
AT tolakanahalliranjini astudyoninterplannerplanqualityvariabilityusingamanualplanningorlightningdoseoptimizerapproachforsinglebrainlesionstreatedwiththegammaknifeicon
AT leeyongsookc studyoninterplannerplanqualityvariabilityusingamanualplanningorlightningdoseoptimizerapproachforsinglebrainlesionstreatedwiththegammaknifeicon
AT wieczorekdjay studyoninterplannerplanqualityvariabilityusingamanualplanningorlightningdoseoptimizerapproachforsinglebrainlesionstreatedwiththegammaknifeicon
AT chaswalvibha studyoninterplannerplanqualityvariabilityusingamanualplanningorlightningdoseoptimizerapproachforsinglebrainlesionstreatedwiththegammaknifeicon
AT kotecharupesh studyoninterplannerplanqualityvariabilityusingamanualplanningorlightningdoseoptimizerapproachforsinglebrainlesionstreatedwiththegammaknifeicon
AT hallmatthewd studyoninterplannerplanqualityvariabilityusingamanualplanningorlightningdoseoptimizerapproachforsinglebrainlesionstreatedwiththegammaknifeicon
AT tommartinc studyoninterplannerplanqualityvariabilityusingamanualplanningorlightningdoseoptimizerapproachforsinglebrainlesionstreatedwiththegammaknifeicon
AT mehtamineshp studyoninterplannerplanqualityvariabilityusingamanualplanningorlightningdoseoptimizerapproachforsinglebrainlesionstreatedwiththegammaknifeicon
AT mcdermottmichaelw studyoninterplannerplanqualityvariabilityusingamanualplanningorlightningdoseoptimizerapproachforsinglebrainlesionstreatedwiththegammaknifeicon
AT gutierrezalonson studyoninterplannerplanqualityvariabilityusingamanualplanningorlightningdoseoptimizerapproachforsinglebrainlesionstreatedwiththegammaknifeicon
AT tolakanahalliranjini studyoninterplannerplanqualityvariabilityusingamanualplanningorlightningdoseoptimizerapproachforsinglebrainlesionstreatedwiththegammaknifeicon