Cargando…

Application of holographic display in radiotherapy treatment planning II: a multi‐institutional study

We hypothesized that use of a true 3D display providing easy visualization of patient anatomy and dose distribution would lead to the production of better quality radiation therapy treatment plans. We report on a randomized prospective multi‐institutional study to evaluate a novel 3D display for tre...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chu, James C H, Gong, Xing, Cai, Yang, Kirk, Michael C, Zusag, Thomas W, Shott, Susan, Rivard, Mark J, Melhus, Christopher S, Cardarelli, Gene A, Hurley, Amanda, Hepel, Jaroslaw T, Napoli, Josh, Stutsman, Sandy, Abrams, Ross A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5720557/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19692975
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v10i3.2902
_version_ 1783284674507833344
author Chu, James C H
Gong, Xing
Cai, Yang
Kirk, Michael C
Zusag, Thomas W
Shott, Susan
Rivard, Mark J
Melhus, Christopher S
Cardarelli, Gene A
Hurley, Amanda
Hepel, Jaroslaw T
Napoli, Josh
Stutsman, Sandy
Abrams, Ross A
author_facet Chu, James C H
Gong, Xing
Cai, Yang
Kirk, Michael C
Zusag, Thomas W
Shott, Susan
Rivard, Mark J
Melhus, Christopher S
Cardarelli, Gene A
Hurley, Amanda
Hepel, Jaroslaw T
Napoli, Josh
Stutsman, Sandy
Abrams, Ross A
author_sort Chu, James C H
collection PubMed
description We hypothesized that use of a true 3D display providing easy visualization of patient anatomy and dose distribution would lead to the production of better quality radiation therapy treatment plans. We report on a randomized prospective multi‐institutional study to evaluate a novel 3D display for treatment planning. The Perspecta® Spatial 3D System produces 360° holograms by projecting cross‐sectional images on a diffuser screen rotating at 900 rpm. Specially‐developed software allows bi‐directional transfer of image and dose data between Perspecta and the Pinnacle planning system. Thirty‐three patients previously treated at three institutions were included in this IRB‐approved study. Patient data were de‐identified, randomized, and assigned to different planners. A physician at each institution reviewed the cases and established planning objectives. Two treatment plans were then produced for each patient, one based on the Pinnacle system alone and another in conjunction with Perspecta. Plan quality was then evaluated by the same physicians who established the planning objectives. All plans were viewable on both Perspecta and Pinnacle for review. Reviewing physicians were blinded to the planning device used. Data from a 13‐patient pilot study were also included in the analysis. Perspecta plans were considered better in 28 patients (61%), Pinnacle in 14 patients (30%), and both were equivalent in 4 patients. The use of non‐coplanar beams was more common with Perspecta plans (82% vs. 27%). The mean target dose differed by less than 2% between rival plans. Perspecta plans were somewhat more likely to have the hot spot located inside the target (43% vs. 33%). Conversely, 30% of the Pinnacle plans had the hot spot outside the target compared with 18% for Perspecta plans. About 57% of normal organs received less dose from Perspecta plans. No statistically significant association was found between plan preference and planning institution or planner. The study found that use of the holographic display leads to radiotherapy plans preferred in a majority of cases over those developed with 2D displays. These data indicate that continued development of this technology for clinical implementation is warranted. PACS numbers: 87.55.D
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5720557
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57205572018-04-02 Application of holographic display in radiotherapy treatment planning II: a multi‐institutional study Chu, James C H Gong, Xing Cai, Yang Kirk, Michael C Zusag, Thomas W Shott, Susan Rivard, Mark J Melhus, Christopher S Cardarelli, Gene A Hurley, Amanda Hepel, Jaroslaw T Napoli, Josh Stutsman, Sandy Abrams, Ross A J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics We hypothesized that use of a true 3D display providing easy visualization of patient anatomy and dose distribution would lead to the production of better quality radiation therapy treatment plans. We report on a randomized prospective multi‐institutional study to evaluate a novel 3D display for treatment planning. The Perspecta® Spatial 3D System produces 360° holograms by projecting cross‐sectional images on a diffuser screen rotating at 900 rpm. Specially‐developed software allows bi‐directional transfer of image and dose data between Perspecta and the Pinnacle planning system. Thirty‐three patients previously treated at three institutions were included in this IRB‐approved study. Patient data were de‐identified, randomized, and assigned to different planners. A physician at each institution reviewed the cases and established planning objectives. Two treatment plans were then produced for each patient, one based on the Pinnacle system alone and another in conjunction with Perspecta. Plan quality was then evaluated by the same physicians who established the planning objectives. All plans were viewable on both Perspecta and Pinnacle for review. Reviewing physicians were blinded to the planning device used. Data from a 13‐patient pilot study were also included in the analysis. Perspecta plans were considered better in 28 patients (61%), Pinnacle in 14 patients (30%), and both were equivalent in 4 patients. The use of non‐coplanar beams was more common with Perspecta plans (82% vs. 27%). The mean target dose differed by less than 2% between rival plans. Perspecta plans were somewhat more likely to have the hot spot located inside the target (43% vs. 33%). Conversely, 30% of the Pinnacle plans had the hot spot outside the target compared with 18% for Perspecta plans. About 57% of normal organs received less dose from Perspecta plans. No statistically significant association was found between plan preference and planning institution or planner. The study found that use of the holographic display leads to radiotherapy plans preferred in a majority of cases over those developed with 2D displays. These data indicate that continued development of this technology for clinical implementation is warranted. PACS numbers: 87.55.D John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2009-05-28 /pmc/articles/PMC5720557/ /pubmed/19692975 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v10i3.2902 Text en © 2009 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Chu, James C H
Gong, Xing
Cai, Yang
Kirk, Michael C
Zusag, Thomas W
Shott, Susan
Rivard, Mark J
Melhus, Christopher S
Cardarelli, Gene A
Hurley, Amanda
Hepel, Jaroslaw T
Napoli, Josh
Stutsman, Sandy
Abrams, Ross A
Application of holographic display in radiotherapy treatment planning II: a multi‐institutional study
title Application of holographic display in radiotherapy treatment planning II: a multi‐institutional study
title_full Application of holographic display in radiotherapy treatment planning II: a multi‐institutional study
title_fullStr Application of holographic display in radiotherapy treatment planning II: a multi‐institutional study
title_full_unstemmed Application of holographic display in radiotherapy treatment planning II: a multi‐institutional study
title_short Application of holographic display in radiotherapy treatment planning II: a multi‐institutional study
title_sort application of holographic display in radiotherapy treatment planning ii: a multi‐institutional study
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5720557/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19692975
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v10i3.2902
work_keys_str_mv AT chujamesch applicationofholographicdisplayinradiotherapytreatmentplanningiiamultiinstitutionalstudy
AT gongxing applicationofholographicdisplayinradiotherapytreatmentplanningiiamultiinstitutionalstudy
AT caiyang applicationofholographicdisplayinradiotherapytreatmentplanningiiamultiinstitutionalstudy
AT kirkmichaelc applicationofholographicdisplayinradiotherapytreatmentplanningiiamultiinstitutionalstudy
AT zusagthomasw applicationofholographicdisplayinradiotherapytreatmentplanningiiamultiinstitutionalstudy
AT shottsusan applicationofholographicdisplayinradiotherapytreatmentplanningiiamultiinstitutionalstudy
AT rivardmarkj applicationofholographicdisplayinradiotherapytreatmentplanningiiamultiinstitutionalstudy
AT melhuschristophers applicationofholographicdisplayinradiotherapytreatmentplanningiiamultiinstitutionalstudy
AT cardarelligenea applicationofholographicdisplayinradiotherapytreatmentplanningiiamultiinstitutionalstudy
AT hurleyamanda applicationofholographicdisplayinradiotherapytreatmentplanningiiamultiinstitutionalstudy
AT hepeljaroslawt applicationofholographicdisplayinradiotherapytreatmentplanningiiamultiinstitutionalstudy
AT napolijosh applicationofholographicdisplayinradiotherapytreatmentplanningiiamultiinstitutionalstudy
AT stutsmansandy applicationofholographicdisplayinradiotherapytreatmentplanningiiamultiinstitutionalstudy
AT abramsrossa applicationofholographicdisplayinradiotherapytreatmentplanningiiamultiinstitutionalstudy