Cargando…

IntuitivePlan inverse planning performance evaluation for Gamma Knife radiosurgery of AVMs

PURPOSE: To compare planning indices achieved using manual and inverse planning approaches for Gamma Knife radiosurgery of arterio‐venous malformations (AVMs). METHODS AND MATERIALS: For a series of consecutive AVM patients, treatment plans were manually created by expert planners using Leksell Gamm...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Paddick, Ian, Grishchuk, Diana, Dimitriadis, Alexis
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7497913/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32755072
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12973
_version_ 1783583405536968704
author Paddick, Ian
Grishchuk, Diana
Dimitriadis, Alexis
author_facet Paddick, Ian
Grishchuk, Diana
Dimitriadis, Alexis
author_sort Paddick, Ian
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To compare planning indices achieved using manual and inverse planning approaches for Gamma Knife radiosurgery of arterio‐venous malformations (AVMs). METHODS AND MATERIALS: For a series of consecutive AVM patients, treatment plans were manually created by expert planners using Leksell GammaPlan (LGP). Patients were re‐planned using a new commercially released inverse planning system, IntuitivePlan. Plan quality metrics were calculated for both groups of plans and compared. RESULTS: Overall, IntuitivePlan created treatment plans of similar quality to expert planners. For some plan quality metrics statistically significant higher scores were achieved for the inversely generated plans (Coverage 96.8% vs 96.3%, P = 0.027; PCI 0.855 vs 0.824, P = 0.042), but others did not show statistically significant differences (Selectivity 0.884 vs 0.856, P = 0.071; GI 2.85 vs 2.76, P = 0.096; Efficiency Index 47.0% vs 48.1%, P = 0.242; Normal Brain V(12)(cc) 5.81 vs 5.79, P = 0.497). Automatic inverse planning demonstrated significantly shorter planning times over manual planning (3.79 vs 11.58 min, P < 10(−6)) and greater numbers of isocentres (40.4 vs 10.8, P < 10(−6)), with an associated cost of longer treatment times (57.97 vs 49.52 min, P = 0.009). When planning and treatment time were combined, there was no significant difference in the overall time between the two methods (61.76 vs 61.10, P = 0.433). CONCLUSIONS: IntuitivePlan can offer savings on the labor of treatment planning. In many cases, it achieves higher quality indices than those achieved by an “expert planner”.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7497913
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74979132020-09-25 IntuitivePlan inverse planning performance evaluation for Gamma Knife radiosurgery of AVMs Paddick, Ian Grishchuk, Diana Dimitriadis, Alexis J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics PURPOSE: To compare planning indices achieved using manual and inverse planning approaches for Gamma Knife radiosurgery of arterio‐venous malformations (AVMs). METHODS AND MATERIALS: For a series of consecutive AVM patients, treatment plans were manually created by expert planners using Leksell GammaPlan (LGP). Patients were re‐planned using a new commercially released inverse planning system, IntuitivePlan. Plan quality metrics were calculated for both groups of plans and compared. RESULTS: Overall, IntuitivePlan created treatment plans of similar quality to expert planners. For some plan quality metrics statistically significant higher scores were achieved for the inversely generated plans (Coverage 96.8% vs 96.3%, P = 0.027; PCI 0.855 vs 0.824, P = 0.042), but others did not show statistically significant differences (Selectivity 0.884 vs 0.856, P = 0.071; GI 2.85 vs 2.76, P = 0.096; Efficiency Index 47.0% vs 48.1%, P = 0.242; Normal Brain V(12)(cc) 5.81 vs 5.79, P = 0.497). Automatic inverse planning demonstrated significantly shorter planning times over manual planning (3.79 vs 11.58 min, P < 10(−6)) and greater numbers of isocentres (40.4 vs 10.8, P < 10(−6)), with an associated cost of longer treatment times (57.97 vs 49.52 min, P = 0.009). When planning and treatment time were combined, there was no significant difference in the overall time between the two methods (61.76 vs 61.10, P = 0.433). CONCLUSIONS: IntuitivePlan can offer savings on the labor of treatment planning. In many cases, it achieves higher quality indices than those achieved by an “expert planner”. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-08-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7497913/ /pubmed/32755072 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12973 Text en © 2020 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
Paddick, Ian
Grishchuk, Diana
Dimitriadis, Alexis
IntuitivePlan inverse planning performance evaluation for Gamma Knife radiosurgery of AVMs
title IntuitivePlan inverse planning performance evaluation for Gamma Knife radiosurgery of AVMs
title_full IntuitivePlan inverse planning performance evaluation for Gamma Knife radiosurgery of AVMs
title_fullStr IntuitivePlan inverse planning performance evaluation for Gamma Knife radiosurgery of AVMs
title_full_unstemmed IntuitivePlan inverse planning performance evaluation for Gamma Knife radiosurgery of AVMs
title_short IntuitivePlan inverse planning performance evaluation for Gamma Knife radiosurgery of AVMs
title_sort intuitiveplan inverse planning performance evaluation for gamma knife radiosurgery of avms
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7497913/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32755072
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12973
work_keys_str_mv AT paddickian intuitiveplaninverseplanningperformanceevaluationforgammakniferadiosurgeryofavms
AT grishchukdiana intuitiveplaninverseplanningperformanceevaluationforgammakniferadiosurgeryofavms
AT dimitriadisalexis intuitiveplaninverseplanningperformanceevaluationforgammakniferadiosurgeryofavms