Cargando…
Refining complex re‐irradiation dosimetry through feasibility benchmarking and analysis for informed treatment planning
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to dually evaluate the effectiveness of PlanIQ in predicting the viability and outcome of dosimetric planning in cases of complex re‐irradiation as well as generating an equivalent plan through Pinnacle integration. The study also postulates that a po...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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/PMC7769417/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33270974 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13102 |
_version_ | 1783629320809349120 |
---|---|
author | Duffy, Seth R. Zheng, Yiran Muenkel, Jessica Ellis, Rodney J. Baig, Tanvir N. Krancevic, Brian Langmack, Christian B. Kelley, Kevin D. Choi, Serah |
author_facet | Duffy, Seth R. Zheng, Yiran Muenkel, Jessica Ellis, Rodney J. Baig, Tanvir N. Krancevic, Brian Langmack, Christian B. Kelley, Kevin D. Choi, Serah |
author_sort | Duffy, Seth R. |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to dually evaluate the effectiveness of PlanIQ in predicting the viability and outcome of dosimetric planning in cases of complex re‐irradiation as well as generating an equivalent plan through Pinnacle integration. The study also postulates that a possible strength of PlanIQ lies in mitigating pre‐optimization uncertainties tied directly to dose overlap regions where re‐irradiation is necessary. METHODS: A retrospective patient selection (n = 20) included a diverse range of re‐irradiation cases to be planned using Pinnacle auto‐planning with PlanIQ integration. A consistent planning template was developed and applied across all cases. Direct plan comparisons of manual plans against feasibility‐produced plans were performed by physician(s) with dosimetry recording relevant proximal OAR and planning timeline data. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: All re‐irradiation cases were successfully predicted to be achievable per PlanIQ analyses with three cases (3/20) necessitating 95% target coverage conditions, previously exhibited in the manually planned counterparts, and determined acceptable under institutional standards. At the same time, PlanIQ consistently produced plans of equal or greater quality to the previously manually planned re‐irradiation across all (20/20) trials (P = 0.05). Proximal OAR exhibited similar to slightly improved maximum point doses from feasibility‐based planning with the largest advantages gained found within the subset of cranial and spine overlap cases, where improvements upward of 10.9% were observed. Mean doses to proximal tissues were found to be a statistically significant (P < 0.05) 5.0% improvement across the entire study. Documented planning times were markedly less than or equal to the time contributed to manual planning across all cases. CONCLUSION: Initial findings indicate that PlanIQ effectively provides the user clear feasibility feedback capable of facilitating decision‐making on whether re‐irradiation dose objectives and prescription dose coverage are possible at the onset of treatment planning thus eliminating possible trial and error associated with some manual planning. Introducing model‐based prediction tools into planning of complex re‐irradiation cases yielded positive outcomes on the final treatment plans. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7769417 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77694172020-12-31 Refining complex re‐irradiation dosimetry through feasibility benchmarking and analysis for informed treatment planning Duffy, Seth R. Zheng, Yiran Muenkel, Jessica Ellis, Rodney J. Baig, Tanvir N. Krancevic, Brian Langmack, Christian B. Kelley, Kevin D. Choi, Serah J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to dually evaluate the effectiveness of PlanIQ in predicting the viability and outcome of dosimetric planning in cases of complex re‐irradiation as well as generating an equivalent plan through Pinnacle integration. The study also postulates that a possible strength of PlanIQ lies in mitigating pre‐optimization uncertainties tied directly to dose overlap regions where re‐irradiation is necessary. METHODS: A retrospective patient selection (n = 20) included a diverse range of re‐irradiation cases to be planned using Pinnacle auto‐planning with PlanIQ integration. A consistent planning template was developed and applied across all cases. Direct plan comparisons of manual plans against feasibility‐produced plans were performed by physician(s) with dosimetry recording relevant proximal OAR and planning timeline data. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: All re‐irradiation cases were successfully predicted to be achievable per PlanIQ analyses with three cases (3/20) necessitating 95% target coverage conditions, previously exhibited in the manually planned counterparts, and determined acceptable under institutional standards. At the same time, PlanIQ consistently produced plans of equal or greater quality to the previously manually planned re‐irradiation across all (20/20) trials (P = 0.05). Proximal OAR exhibited similar to slightly improved maximum point doses from feasibility‐based planning with the largest advantages gained found within the subset of cranial and spine overlap cases, where improvements upward of 10.9% were observed. Mean doses to proximal tissues were found to be a statistically significant (P < 0.05) 5.0% improvement across the entire study. Documented planning times were markedly less than or equal to the time contributed to manual planning across all cases. CONCLUSION: Initial findings indicate that PlanIQ effectively provides the user clear feasibility feedback capable of facilitating decision‐making on whether re‐irradiation dose objectives and prescription dose coverage are possible at the onset of treatment planning thus eliminating possible trial and error associated with some manual planning. Introducing model‐based prediction tools into planning of complex re‐irradiation cases yielded positive outcomes on the final treatment plans. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-12-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7769417/ /pubmed/33270974 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13102 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 Duffy, Seth R. Zheng, Yiran Muenkel, Jessica Ellis, Rodney J. Baig, Tanvir N. Krancevic, Brian Langmack, Christian B. Kelley, Kevin D. Choi, Serah Refining complex re‐irradiation dosimetry through feasibility benchmarking and analysis for informed treatment planning |
title | Refining complex re‐irradiation dosimetry through feasibility benchmarking and analysis for informed treatment planning |
title_full | Refining complex re‐irradiation dosimetry through feasibility benchmarking and analysis for informed treatment planning |
title_fullStr | Refining complex re‐irradiation dosimetry through feasibility benchmarking and analysis for informed treatment planning |
title_full_unstemmed | Refining complex re‐irradiation dosimetry through feasibility benchmarking and analysis for informed treatment planning |
title_short | Refining complex re‐irradiation dosimetry through feasibility benchmarking and analysis for informed treatment planning |
title_sort | refining complex re‐irradiation dosimetry through feasibility benchmarking and analysis for informed treatment planning |
topic | Radiation Oncology Physics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7769417/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33270974 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13102 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT duffysethr refiningcomplexreirradiationdosimetrythroughfeasibilitybenchmarkingandanalysisforinformedtreatmentplanning AT zhengyiran refiningcomplexreirradiationdosimetrythroughfeasibilitybenchmarkingandanalysisforinformedtreatmentplanning AT muenkeljessica refiningcomplexreirradiationdosimetrythroughfeasibilitybenchmarkingandanalysisforinformedtreatmentplanning AT ellisrodneyj refiningcomplexreirradiationdosimetrythroughfeasibilitybenchmarkingandanalysisforinformedtreatmentplanning AT baigtanvirn refiningcomplexreirradiationdosimetrythroughfeasibilitybenchmarkingandanalysisforinformedtreatmentplanning AT krancevicbrian refiningcomplexreirradiationdosimetrythroughfeasibilitybenchmarkingandanalysisforinformedtreatmentplanning AT langmackchristianb refiningcomplexreirradiationdosimetrythroughfeasibilitybenchmarkingandanalysisforinformedtreatmentplanning AT kelleykevind refiningcomplexreirradiationdosimetrythroughfeasibilitybenchmarkingandanalysisforinformedtreatmentplanning AT choiserah refiningcomplexreirradiationdosimetrythroughfeasibilitybenchmarkingandanalysisforinformedtreatmentplanning |