Cargando…

A hybrid automated treatment planning solution for esophageal cancer

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate a hybrid automated treatment planning (HAP) solution that combines knowledge-based planning (KBP) and script-based planning for esophageal cancer. METHODS: In order to fully investigate the advantages of HAP, three planning strategies were implemented in the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ling, Chifang, Han, Xu, Zhai, Peng, Xu, Hao, Chen, Jiayan, Wang, Jiazhou, Hu, Weigang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6923830/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31856866
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-019-1443-5
_version_ 1783481601062076416
author Ling, Chifang
Han, Xu
Zhai, Peng
Xu, Hao
Chen, Jiayan
Wang, Jiazhou
Hu, Weigang
author_facet Ling, Chifang
Han, Xu
Zhai, Peng
Xu, Hao
Chen, Jiayan
Wang, Jiazhou
Hu, Weigang
author_sort Ling, Chifang
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate a hybrid automated treatment planning (HAP) solution that combines knowledge-based planning (KBP) and script-based planning for esophageal cancer. METHODS: In order to fully investigate the advantages of HAP, three planning strategies were implemented in the present study: HAP, KBP, and full manual planning. Each method was applied to 20 patients. For HAP and KBP, the objective functions for plan optimization were generated from a dose–volume histogram (DVH) estimation model, which was based on 70 esophageal patients. Script-based automated planning was used for HAP, while the regular IMRT inverse planning method was used for KBP. For full manual planning, clinical standards were applied to create the plans. Paired t-tests were performed to compare the differences in dose-volume indices among the three planning methods. RESULTS: Among the three planning strategies, HAP exhibited the best performance in all dose-volume indices, except for PTV dose homogeneity and lung V5. PTV conformity and spinal cord sparing were significantly improved in HAP (P < 0.001). Compared to KBP, HAP improved all indices, except for lung V5. Furthermore, the OAR sparing and target coverage between HAP and full manual planning were similar. Moreover, HAP had the shortest average planning time (57 min), when compared to KBP (63 min) and full manual planning (118 min). CONCLUSION: HAP is an effective planning strategy for obtaining a high quality treatment plan for esophageal cancer.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6923830
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69238302019-12-30 A hybrid automated treatment planning solution for esophageal cancer Ling, Chifang Han, Xu Zhai, Peng Xu, Hao Chen, Jiayan Wang, Jiazhou Hu, Weigang Radiat Oncol Research OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate a hybrid automated treatment planning (HAP) solution that combines knowledge-based planning (KBP) and script-based planning for esophageal cancer. METHODS: In order to fully investigate the advantages of HAP, three planning strategies were implemented in the present study: HAP, KBP, and full manual planning. Each method was applied to 20 patients. For HAP and KBP, the objective functions for plan optimization were generated from a dose–volume histogram (DVH) estimation model, which was based on 70 esophageal patients. Script-based automated planning was used for HAP, while the regular IMRT inverse planning method was used for KBP. For full manual planning, clinical standards were applied to create the plans. Paired t-tests were performed to compare the differences in dose-volume indices among the three planning methods. RESULTS: Among the three planning strategies, HAP exhibited the best performance in all dose-volume indices, except for PTV dose homogeneity and lung V5. PTV conformity and spinal cord sparing were significantly improved in HAP (P < 0.001). Compared to KBP, HAP improved all indices, except for lung V5. Furthermore, the OAR sparing and target coverage between HAP and full manual planning were similar. Moreover, HAP had the shortest average planning time (57 min), when compared to KBP (63 min) and full manual planning (118 min). CONCLUSION: HAP is an effective planning strategy for obtaining a high quality treatment plan for esophageal cancer. BioMed Central 2019-12-19 /pmc/articles/PMC6923830/ /pubmed/31856866 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-019-1443-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Ling, Chifang
Han, Xu
Zhai, Peng
Xu, Hao
Chen, Jiayan
Wang, Jiazhou
Hu, Weigang
A hybrid automated treatment planning solution for esophageal cancer
title A hybrid automated treatment planning solution for esophageal cancer
title_full A hybrid automated treatment planning solution for esophageal cancer
title_fullStr A hybrid automated treatment planning solution for esophageal cancer
title_full_unstemmed A hybrid automated treatment planning solution for esophageal cancer
title_short A hybrid automated treatment planning solution for esophageal cancer
title_sort hybrid automated treatment planning solution for esophageal cancer
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6923830/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31856866
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-019-1443-5
work_keys_str_mv AT lingchifang ahybridautomatedtreatmentplanningsolutionforesophagealcancer
AT hanxu ahybridautomatedtreatmentplanningsolutionforesophagealcancer
AT zhaipeng ahybridautomatedtreatmentplanningsolutionforesophagealcancer
AT xuhao ahybridautomatedtreatmentplanningsolutionforesophagealcancer
AT chenjiayan ahybridautomatedtreatmentplanningsolutionforesophagealcancer
AT wangjiazhou ahybridautomatedtreatmentplanningsolutionforesophagealcancer
AT huweigang ahybridautomatedtreatmentplanningsolutionforesophagealcancer
AT lingchifang hybridautomatedtreatmentplanningsolutionforesophagealcancer
AT hanxu hybridautomatedtreatmentplanningsolutionforesophagealcancer
AT zhaipeng hybridautomatedtreatmentplanningsolutionforesophagealcancer
AT xuhao hybridautomatedtreatmentplanningsolutionforesophagealcancer
AT chenjiayan hybridautomatedtreatmentplanningsolutionforesophagealcancer
AT wangjiazhou hybridautomatedtreatmentplanningsolutionforesophagealcancer
AT huweigang hybridautomatedtreatmentplanningsolutionforesophagealcancer