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