Cargando…

Multicriteria optimization enables less experienced planners to efficiently produce high quality treatment plans in head and neck cancer radiotherapy

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate that novice dosimetry planners efficiently create clinically acceptable IMRT plans for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients using a commercially available multicriteria optimization (MCO) system. METHODS: Twenty HNC patients were enrolled in this in-silico comparative plann...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kierkels, Roel GJ, Visser, Ruurd, Bijl, Hendrik P, Langendijk, Johannes A, van ‘t Veld, Aart A, Steenbakkers, Roel JHM, Korevaar, Erik W
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4397887/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25885444
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-015-0385-9
_version_ 1782366767597748224
author Kierkels, Roel GJ
Visser, Ruurd
Bijl, Hendrik P
Langendijk, Johannes A
van ‘t Veld, Aart A
Steenbakkers, Roel JHM
Korevaar, Erik W
author_facet Kierkels, Roel GJ
Visser, Ruurd
Bijl, Hendrik P
Langendijk, Johannes A
van ‘t Veld, Aart A
Steenbakkers, Roel JHM
Korevaar, Erik W
author_sort Kierkels, Roel GJ
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate that novice dosimetry planners efficiently create clinically acceptable IMRT plans for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients using a commercially available multicriteria optimization (MCO) system. METHODS: Twenty HNC patients were enrolled in this in-silico comparative planning study. Per patient, novice planners with less experience in dosimetry planning created an IMRT plan using an MCO system (RayStation). Furthermore, a conventionally planned clinical IMRT plan was available (Pinnacle(3)). All conventional IMRT and MCO-plans were blind-rated by two expert radiation-oncologists in HNC, using a 5-point scale (1–5 with 5 the highest score) assessment form comprising 10 questions. Additionally, plan quality was reported in terms of planning time, dosimetric and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) comparisons. Inter-rater reliability was derived using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: In total, the radiation-oncologists rated 800 items on plan quality. The overall plan score indicated no differences between both planning techniques (conventional IMRT: 3.8 ± 1.2 vs. MCO: 3.6 ± 1.1, p = 0.29). The inter-rater reliability of all ratings was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.57–0.71), indicating substantial agreement between the radiation-oncologists. In 93% of cases, the scoring difference of the conventional IMRT and MCO-plans was one point or less. Furthermore, MCO-plans led to slightly higher dose uniformity in the therapeutic planning target volume, to a lower integral body dose (13.9 ± 4.5 Gy vs. 12.9 ± 4.0 Gy, p < 0.001), and to reduced dose to the contra-lateral parotid gland (28.1 ± 11.8 Gy vs. 23.0 ± 11.2 Gy, p < 0.002). Consequently, NTCP estimates for xerostomia reduced by 8.4 ± 7.4% (p < 0.003). The hands-on time of the conventional IMRT planning was approximately 205 min. The time to create an MCO-plan was on average 43 ± 12 min. CONCLUSIONS: MCO planning enables novice treatment planners to create high quality IMRT plans for HNC patients. Plans were created with vastly reduced planning times, requiring less resources and a short learning curve.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4397887
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43978872015-04-16 Multicriteria optimization enables less experienced planners to efficiently produce high quality treatment plans in head and neck cancer radiotherapy Kierkels, Roel GJ Visser, Ruurd Bijl, Hendrik P Langendijk, Johannes A van ‘t Veld, Aart A Steenbakkers, Roel JHM Korevaar, Erik W Radiat Oncol Research OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate that novice dosimetry planners efficiently create clinically acceptable IMRT plans for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients using a commercially available multicriteria optimization (MCO) system. METHODS: Twenty HNC patients were enrolled in this in-silico comparative planning study. Per patient, novice planners with less experience in dosimetry planning created an IMRT plan using an MCO system (RayStation). Furthermore, a conventionally planned clinical IMRT plan was available (Pinnacle(3)). All conventional IMRT and MCO-plans were blind-rated by two expert radiation-oncologists in HNC, using a 5-point scale (1–5 with 5 the highest score) assessment form comprising 10 questions. Additionally, plan quality was reported in terms of planning time, dosimetric and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) comparisons. Inter-rater reliability was derived using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: In total, the radiation-oncologists rated 800 items on plan quality. The overall plan score indicated no differences between both planning techniques (conventional IMRT: 3.8 ± 1.2 vs. MCO: 3.6 ± 1.1, p = 0.29). The inter-rater reliability of all ratings was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.57–0.71), indicating substantial agreement between the radiation-oncologists. In 93% of cases, the scoring difference of the conventional IMRT and MCO-plans was one point or less. Furthermore, MCO-plans led to slightly higher dose uniformity in the therapeutic planning target volume, to a lower integral body dose (13.9 ± 4.5 Gy vs. 12.9 ± 4.0 Gy, p < 0.001), and to reduced dose to the contra-lateral parotid gland (28.1 ± 11.8 Gy vs. 23.0 ± 11.2 Gy, p < 0.002). Consequently, NTCP estimates for xerostomia reduced by 8.4 ± 7.4% (p < 0.003). The hands-on time of the conventional IMRT planning was approximately 205 min. The time to create an MCO-plan was on average 43 ± 12 min. CONCLUSIONS: MCO planning enables novice treatment planners to create high quality IMRT plans for HNC patients. Plans were created with vastly reduced planning times, requiring less resources and a short learning curve. BioMed Central 2015-04-12 /pmc/articles/PMC4397887/ /pubmed/25885444 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-015-0385-9 Text en © Kierkels et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Kierkels, Roel GJ
Visser, Ruurd
Bijl, Hendrik P
Langendijk, Johannes A
van ‘t Veld, Aart A
Steenbakkers, Roel JHM
Korevaar, Erik W
Multicriteria optimization enables less experienced planners to efficiently produce high quality treatment plans in head and neck cancer radiotherapy
title Multicriteria optimization enables less experienced planners to efficiently produce high quality treatment plans in head and neck cancer radiotherapy
title_full Multicriteria optimization enables less experienced planners to efficiently produce high quality treatment plans in head and neck cancer radiotherapy
title_fullStr Multicriteria optimization enables less experienced planners to efficiently produce high quality treatment plans in head and neck cancer radiotherapy
title_full_unstemmed Multicriteria optimization enables less experienced planners to efficiently produce high quality treatment plans in head and neck cancer radiotherapy
title_short Multicriteria optimization enables less experienced planners to efficiently produce high quality treatment plans in head and neck cancer radiotherapy
title_sort multicriteria optimization enables less experienced planners to efficiently produce high quality treatment plans in head and neck cancer radiotherapy
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4397887/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25885444
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-015-0385-9
work_keys_str_mv AT kierkelsroelgj multicriteriaoptimizationenableslessexperiencedplannerstoefficientlyproducehighqualitytreatmentplansinheadandneckcancerradiotherapy
AT visserruurd multicriteriaoptimizationenableslessexperiencedplannerstoefficientlyproducehighqualitytreatmentplansinheadandneckcancerradiotherapy
AT bijlhendrikp multicriteriaoptimizationenableslessexperiencedplannerstoefficientlyproducehighqualitytreatmentplansinheadandneckcancerradiotherapy
AT langendijkjohannesa multicriteriaoptimizationenableslessexperiencedplannerstoefficientlyproducehighqualitytreatmentplansinheadandneckcancerradiotherapy
AT vantveldaarta multicriteriaoptimizationenableslessexperiencedplannerstoefficientlyproducehighqualitytreatmentplansinheadandneckcancerradiotherapy
AT steenbakkersroeljhm multicriteriaoptimizationenableslessexperiencedplannerstoefficientlyproducehighqualitytreatmentplansinheadandneckcancerradiotherapy
AT korevaarerikw multicriteriaoptimizationenableslessexperiencedplannerstoefficientlyproducehighqualitytreatmentplansinheadandneckcancerradiotherapy