Cargando…

Evaluation of an Automated Proton Planning Solution

Purpose Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatments are increasing, however, treatment planning remains complex and prone to variability. RapidPlan(TM)PT (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, California, USA) is a pre-clinical, proton-specific, automated knowledge-based planning solution whic...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Delaney, Alexander R, Verbakel, Wilko F, Lindberg, Jari, Koponen, Timo K, Slotman, Ben J., Dahele, Max
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cureus 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6372253/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30788187
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.3696
_version_ 1783394708735655936
author Delaney, Alexander R
Verbakel, Wilko F
Lindberg, Jari
Koponen, Timo K
Slotman, Ben J.
Dahele, Max
author_facet Delaney, Alexander R
Verbakel, Wilko F
Lindberg, Jari
Koponen, Timo K
Slotman, Ben J.
Dahele, Max
author_sort Delaney, Alexander R
collection PubMed
description Purpose Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatments are increasing, however, treatment planning remains complex and prone to variability. RapidPlan(TM)PT (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, California, USA) is a pre-clinical, proton-specific, automated knowledge-based planning solution which could reduce variability and increase efficiency. It uses a library of previous IMPT treatment plans to generate a model which can predict organ-at-risk (OAR) dose for new patients, and guide IMPT optimization. This study details and evaluates RapidPlan(TM)PT. Methods IMPT treatment plans for 50 head-and-neck cancer patients populated the model-library. The model was then used to create knowledge-based plans (KBPs) for 10 evaluation-patients. Model quality and accuracy were evaluated using model-provided OAR regression plots and examining the difference between predicted and achieved KBP mean dose. KBP quality was assessed through comparison with respective manual IMPT plans on the basis of boost/elective planning target volume (PTV(B)/PTV(E)) homogeneity and OAR sparing. The time to create KBPs was recorded. Results Model quality was good, with an average R(2) of 0.85 between dosimetric and geometric features. The model showed high predictive accuracy with differences of <3 Gy between predicted and achieved OAR mean doses for 88/109 OARs. On average, KBPs were comparable to manual IMPT plans with differences of <0.6% in homogeneity. Only 2 of 109 OARs in KBPs had a mean dose >3 Gy more than the manual plan. On average, dose-volume histogram (DVH) predictions required 0.7 minutes while KBP optimization and dose calculation required 4.1 minutes (a ‘continue optimization’ phase, if required, took an additional 2.8 minutes, on average). Conclusions RapidPlan(TM)PT demonstrated efficiency and consistency and IMPT KBPs were comparable to manual plans. Because worse OAR sparing in a KBP was not always associated with geometric-outlier warnings, manual plan checks remain important. Such an automated planning solution could also assist in clinical trial quality assurance and overcome the learning curve associated with IMPT.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6372253
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Cureus
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63722532019-02-20 Evaluation of an Automated Proton Planning Solution Delaney, Alexander R Verbakel, Wilko F Lindberg, Jari Koponen, Timo K Slotman, Ben J. Dahele, Max Cureus Medical Physics Purpose Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatments are increasing, however, treatment planning remains complex and prone to variability. RapidPlan(TM)PT (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, California, USA) is a pre-clinical, proton-specific, automated knowledge-based planning solution which could reduce variability and increase efficiency. It uses a library of previous IMPT treatment plans to generate a model which can predict organ-at-risk (OAR) dose for new patients, and guide IMPT optimization. This study details and evaluates RapidPlan(TM)PT. Methods IMPT treatment plans for 50 head-and-neck cancer patients populated the model-library. The model was then used to create knowledge-based plans (KBPs) for 10 evaluation-patients. Model quality and accuracy were evaluated using model-provided OAR regression plots and examining the difference between predicted and achieved KBP mean dose. KBP quality was assessed through comparison with respective manual IMPT plans on the basis of boost/elective planning target volume (PTV(B)/PTV(E)) homogeneity and OAR sparing. The time to create KBPs was recorded. Results Model quality was good, with an average R(2) of 0.85 between dosimetric and geometric features. The model showed high predictive accuracy with differences of <3 Gy between predicted and achieved OAR mean doses for 88/109 OARs. On average, KBPs were comparable to manual IMPT plans with differences of <0.6% in homogeneity. Only 2 of 109 OARs in KBPs had a mean dose >3 Gy more than the manual plan. On average, dose-volume histogram (DVH) predictions required 0.7 minutes while KBP optimization and dose calculation required 4.1 minutes (a ‘continue optimization’ phase, if required, took an additional 2.8 minutes, on average). Conclusions RapidPlan(TM)PT demonstrated efficiency and consistency and IMPT KBPs were comparable to manual plans. Because worse OAR sparing in a KBP was not always associated with geometric-outlier warnings, manual plan checks remain important. Such an automated planning solution could also assist in clinical trial quality assurance and overcome the learning curve associated with IMPT. Cureus 2018-12-06 /pmc/articles/PMC6372253/ /pubmed/30788187 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.3696 Text en Copyright © 2018, Delaney et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Medical Physics
Delaney, Alexander R
Verbakel, Wilko F
Lindberg, Jari
Koponen, Timo K
Slotman, Ben J.
Dahele, Max
Evaluation of an Automated Proton Planning Solution
title Evaluation of an Automated Proton Planning Solution
title_full Evaluation of an Automated Proton Planning Solution
title_fullStr Evaluation of an Automated Proton Planning Solution
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of an Automated Proton Planning Solution
title_short Evaluation of an Automated Proton Planning Solution
title_sort evaluation of an automated proton planning solution
topic Medical Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6372253/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30788187
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.3696
work_keys_str_mv AT delaneyalexanderr evaluationofanautomatedprotonplanningsolution
AT verbakelwilkof evaluationofanautomatedprotonplanningsolution
AT lindbergjari evaluationofanautomatedprotonplanningsolution
AT koponentimok evaluationofanautomatedprotonplanningsolution
AT slotmanbenj evaluationofanautomatedprotonplanningsolution
AT dahelemax evaluationofanautomatedprotonplanningsolution