Automated volumetric modulated arc therapy planning for whole pelvic prostate radiotherapy

BACKGROUND: For several tumor entities, automated treatment planning has improved plan quality and planning efficiency, and may enable adaptive treatment approaches. Whole-pelvic prostate radiotherapy (WPRT) involves large concave target volumes, which present a challenge for volumetric arc therapy...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Buschmann, Martin, Sharfo, Abdul Wahab M., Penninkhof, Joan, Seppenwoolde, Yvette, Goldner, Gregor, Georg, Dietmar, Breedveld, Sebastiaan, Heijmen, Ben J. M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017
Materias:
Original Article
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5869893/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29270648
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00066-017-1246-2
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: For several tumor entities, automated treatment planning has improved plan quality and planning efficiency, and may enable adaptive treatment approaches. Whole-pelvic prostate radiotherapy (WPRT) involves large concave target volumes, which present a challenge for volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) optimization. This study evaluates automated VMAT planning for WPRT-VMAT and compares the results with manual expert planning. METHODS: A system for fully automated multi-criterial plan generation was configured for each step of sequential-boost WPRT-VMAT, with final “autoVMAT” plans being automatically calculated by the Monaco treatment planning system (TPS; Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden). Configuration was based on manually generated VMAT plans (manualVMAT) of 5 test patients, the planning protocol, and discussions with the treating physician on wishes for plan improvements. AutoVMAT plans were then generated for another 30 evaluation patients and compared to manualVMAT plans. For all 35 patients, manualVMAT plans were optimized by expert planners using the Monaco TPS. RESULTS: AutoVMAT plans exhibited strongly improved organ sparing and higher conformity compared to manualVMAT. On average, mean doses (D(mean)) of bladder and rectum were reduced by 10.7 and 4.5 Gy, respectively, by autoVMAT. Prostate target coverage (V(95%)) was slightly higher (+0.6%) with manualVMAT. In a blinded scoring session, the radiation oncologist preferred autoVMAT plans to manualVMAT plans for 27/30 patients. All treatment plans were considered clinically acceptable. The workload per patient was reduced by > 70 min. CONCLUSION: Automated VMAT planning for complex WPRT dose distributions is feasible and creates treatment plans that are generally dosimetrically superior to manually optimized plans. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00066-017-1246-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Ejemplares similares