Cargando…

Evaluation of an automated knowledge based treatment planning system for head and neck

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated an automated inverse treatment planning algorithm, Pinnacle Auto-Planning (AP), and compared automatically generated plans with historical plans in a large cohort of head and neck cancer patients. METHODS: Fifty consecutive patients treated with volumetric modulated...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Krayenbuehl, Jerome, Norton, Ian, Studer, Gabriela, Guckenberger, Matthias
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4641383/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26555303
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-015-0533-2
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: This study evaluated an automated inverse treatment planning algorithm, Pinnacle Auto-Planning (AP), and compared automatically generated plans with historical plans in a large cohort of head and neck cancer patients. METHODS: Fifty consecutive patients treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy (Eclipse, Varian Medical System, Palo Alto, CA) for head and neck were re-planned with AP version 9.10. Only one single cycle of plan optimization using one single template was allowed for AP. The dose to the planning target volumes (PTV’s; 3–4 dose levels), the organs at risk (OAR’s) and the effective working time for planning was evaluated. Additionally, two experienced radiation oncologists blind-reviewed and ranked 10 plans. RESULTS: Dose coverage and dose homogeneity of the PTV were significantly improved with AP, however manually optimized plans showed significantly improved dose conformity. The mean dose to the parotid glands, oral mucosa, swallowing muscles, dorsal neck tissue and maximal dose to the spinal cord were significantly reduced with AP. In 64 % of the plans, the mean dose to any OAR (spinal cord excluded) was reduced by >20 % with AP in comparison to the manually optimized plans. In 12 % of the plans, the manually optimized plans showed reduced doses by >20 % in at least one OAR. The experienced radiation oncologists preferred the AP plan and the clinical plan in 80 and 20 % of the cases, respectively. The average effective working time was 3.8 min ± 1.1 min in comparison to 48.5 min ± 6.0 min using AP compared to the manually optimized plans, respectively. CONCLUSION: The evaluated automated planning algorithm achieved highly consistent and significantly improved treatment plans with potentially clinically relevant OAR sparing by >20 % in 64 % of the cases. The effective working time was substantially reduced with Auto-Planning.