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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |