Cargando…

Three IMRT advanced planning tools: A multi‐institutional side‐by‐side comparison

PURPOSE: To assess three advanced radiation therapy treatment planning tools on the intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality and consistency when compared to the clinically approved plans, referred as manual plans, which were planned without using any of these advanced planning tools. MA...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lu, Lan, Sheng, Yang, Donaghue, Jeremy, Liu Shen, Zhilei, Kolar, Matt, Wu, Q. Jackie, Xia, Ping
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6698808/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31364798
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12679
_version_ 1783444618395779072
author Lu, Lan
Sheng, Yang
Donaghue, Jeremy
Liu Shen, Zhilei
Kolar, Matt
Wu, Q. Jackie
Xia, Ping
author_facet Lu, Lan
Sheng, Yang
Donaghue, Jeremy
Liu Shen, Zhilei
Kolar, Matt
Wu, Q. Jackie
Xia, Ping
author_sort Lu, Lan
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To assess three advanced radiation therapy treatment planning tools on the intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality and consistency when compared to the clinically approved plans, referred as manual plans, which were planned without using any of these advanced planning tools. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three advanced radiation therapy treatment planning tools, including auto‐planning, knowledge‐based planning, and multiple criteria optimization, were assessed on 20 previously treated clinical cases. Three institutions participated in this study, each with expertise in one of these tools. The twenty cases were retrospectively selected from Cleveland Clinic, including five head‐and‐neck (HN) cases, five brain cases, five prostate with pelvic lymph nodes cases, and five spine cases. A set of general planning objectives and organs‐at‐risk (OAR) dose constraints for each disease site from Cleveland Clinic was shared with other two institutions. A total of 60 IMRT research plans (20 from each institution) were designed with the same beam configuration as in the respective manual plans. For each disease site, detailed isodoseline distributions and dose volume histograms for a randomly selected representative case were compared among the three research plans and manual plan. In addition, dosimetric endpoints of five cases for each site were compared. RESULTS: Compared to the manual plans, the research plans using advanced tools showed substantial improvement for the HN patient cases, including the maximum dose to the spinal cord and brainstem and mean dose to the parotid glands. For the brain, prostate, and spine cases, the four types of plans were comparable based on dosimetric endpoint comparisons. CONCLUSION: With minimal planner interventions, advanced treatment planning tools are clinically useful, producing a plan quality similarly to or better than manual plans, improving plan consistency. For difficult cases such as HN cancer, advanced planning tools can further reduce radiation doses to numerous OARs while delivering adequate dose to the tumor targets.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6698808
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66988082019-08-22 Three IMRT advanced planning tools: A multi‐institutional side‐by‐side comparison Lu, Lan Sheng, Yang Donaghue, Jeremy Liu Shen, Zhilei Kolar, Matt Wu, Q. Jackie Xia, Ping J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics PURPOSE: To assess three advanced radiation therapy treatment planning tools on the intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality and consistency when compared to the clinically approved plans, referred as manual plans, which were planned without using any of these advanced planning tools. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three advanced radiation therapy treatment planning tools, including auto‐planning, knowledge‐based planning, and multiple criteria optimization, were assessed on 20 previously treated clinical cases. Three institutions participated in this study, each with expertise in one of these tools. The twenty cases were retrospectively selected from Cleveland Clinic, including five head‐and‐neck (HN) cases, five brain cases, five prostate with pelvic lymph nodes cases, and five spine cases. A set of general planning objectives and organs‐at‐risk (OAR) dose constraints for each disease site from Cleveland Clinic was shared with other two institutions. A total of 60 IMRT research plans (20 from each institution) were designed with the same beam configuration as in the respective manual plans. For each disease site, detailed isodoseline distributions and dose volume histograms for a randomly selected representative case were compared among the three research plans and manual plan. In addition, dosimetric endpoints of five cases for each site were compared. RESULTS: Compared to the manual plans, the research plans using advanced tools showed substantial improvement for the HN patient cases, including the maximum dose to the spinal cord and brainstem and mean dose to the parotid glands. For the brain, prostate, and spine cases, the four types of plans were comparable based on dosimetric endpoint comparisons. CONCLUSION: With minimal planner interventions, advanced treatment planning tools are clinically useful, producing a plan quality similarly to or better than manual plans, improving plan consistency. For difficult cases such as HN cancer, advanced planning tools can further reduce radiation doses to numerous OARs while delivering adequate dose to the tumor targets. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-07-31 /pmc/articles/PMC6698808/ /pubmed/31364798 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12679 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Lu, Lan
Sheng, Yang
Donaghue, Jeremy
Liu Shen, Zhilei
Kolar, Matt
Wu, Q. Jackie
Xia, Ping
Three IMRT advanced planning tools: A multi‐institutional side‐by‐side comparison
title Three IMRT advanced planning tools: A multi‐institutional side‐by‐side comparison
title_full Three IMRT advanced planning tools: A multi‐institutional side‐by‐side comparison
title_fullStr Three IMRT advanced planning tools: A multi‐institutional side‐by‐side comparison
title_full_unstemmed Three IMRT advanced planning tools: A multi‐institutional side‐by‐side comparison
title_short Three IMRT advanced planning tools: A multi‐institutional side‐by‐side comparison
title_sort three imrt advanced planning tools: a multi‐institutional side‐by‐side comparison
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6698808/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31364798
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12679
work_keys_str_mv AT lulan threeimrtadvancedplanningtoolsamultiinstitutionalsidebysidecomparison
AT shengyang threeimrtadvancedplanningtoolsamultiinstitutionalsidebysidecomparison
AT donaghuejeremy threeimrtadvancedplanningtoolsamultiinstitutionalsidebysidecomparison
AT liushenzhilei threeimrtadvancedplanningtoolsamultiinstitutionalsidebysidecomparison
AT kolarmatt threeimrtadvancedplanningtoolsamultiinstitutionalsidebysidecomparison
AT wuqjackie threeimrtadvancedplanningtoolsamultiinstitutionalsidebysidecomparison
AT xiaping threeimrtadvancedplanningtoolsamultiinstitutionalsidebysidecomparison