Cargando…

Characterization of automatic treatment planning approaches in radiotherapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Automatic approaches are widely implemented to automate dose optimization in radiotherapy treatment planning. This study systematically investigates how to configure automatic planning in order to create the best possible plans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Automatic plans were gen...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wortel, Geert, Eekhout, Dave, Lamers, Emmy, van der Bel, René, Kiers, Karen, Wiersma, Terry, Janssen, Tomas, Damen, Eugène
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8295841/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34307920
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2021.07.003
_version_ 1783725504327581696
author Wortel, Geert
Eekhout, Dave
Lamers, Emmy
van der Bel, René
Kiers, Karen
Wiersma, Terry
Janssen, Tomas
Damen, Eugène
author_facet Wortel, Geert
Eekhout, Dave
Lamers, Emmy
van der Bel, René
Kiers, Karen
Wiersma, Terry
Janssen, Tomas
Damen, Eugène
author_sort Wortel, Geert
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Automatic approaches are widely implemented to automate dose optimization in radiotherapy treatment planning. This study systematically investigates how to configure automatic planning in order to create the best possible plans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Automatic plans were generated using protocol based automatic iterative optimization. Starting from a simple automation protocol which consisted of the constraints for targets and organs at risk (OAR), the performance of the automatic approach was evaluated in terms of target coverage, OAR sparing, conformity, beam complexity, and plan quality. More complex protocols were systematically explored to improve the quality of the automatic plans. The protocols could be improved by adding a dose goal on the outer 2 mm of the PTV, by setting goals on strategically chosen subparts of OARs, by adding goals for conformity, and by limiting the leaf motion. For prostate plans, development of an automated post-optimization procedure was required to achieve precise control over the dose distribution. Automatic and manually optimized plans were compared for 20 head and neck (H&N), 20 prostate, and 20 rectum cancer patients. RESULTS: Based on simple automation protocols, the automatic optimizer was not always able to generate adequate treatment plans. For the improved final configurations for the three sites, the dose was lower in automatic plans compared to the manual plans in 12 out of 13 considered OARs. In blind tests, the automatic plans were preferred in 80% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: With adequate, advanced, protocols the automatic planning approach is able to create high-quality treatment plans.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8295841
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82958412021-07-23 Characterization of automatic treatment planning approaches in radiotherapy Wortel, Geert Eekhout, Dave Lamers, Emmy van der Bel, René Kiers, Karen Wiersma, Terry Janssen, Tomas Damen, Eugène Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Original Research Article BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Automatic approaches are widely implemented to automate dose optimization in radiotherapy treatment planning. This study systematically investigates how to configure automatic planning in order to create the best possible plans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Automatic plans were generated using protocol based automatic iterative optimization. Starting from a simple automation protocol which consisted of the constraints for targets and organs at risk (OAR), the performance of the automatic approach was evaluated in terms of target coverage, OAR sparing, conformity, beam complexity, and plan quality. More complex protocols were systematically explored to improve the quality of the automatic plans. The protocols could be improved by adding a dose goal on the outer 2 mm of the PTV, by setting goals on strategically chosen subparts of OARs, by adding goals for conformity, and by limiting the leaf motion. For prostate plans, development of an automated post-optimization procedure was required to achieve precise control over the dose distribution. Automatic and manually optimized plans were compared for 20 head and neck (H&N), 20 prostate, and 20 rectum cancer patients. RESULTS: Based on simple automation protocols, the automatic optimizer was not always able to generate adequate treatment plans. For the improved final configurations for the three sites, the dose was lower in automatic plans compared to the manual plans in 12 out of 13 considered OARs. In blind tests, the automatic plans were preferred in 80% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: With adequate, advanced, protocols the automatic planning approach is able to create high-quality treatment plans. Elsevier 2021-07-13 /pmc/articles/PMC8295841/ /pubmed/34307920 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2021.07.003 Text en © 2021 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Research Article
Wortel, Geert
Eekhout, Dave
Lamers, Emmy
van der Bel, René
Kiers, Karen
Wiersma, Terry
Janssen, Tomas
Damen, Eugène
Characterization of automatic treatment planning approaches in radiotherapy
title Characterization of automatic treatment planning approaches in radiotherapy
title_full Characterization of automatic treatment planning approaches in radiotherapy
title_fullStr Characterization of automatic treatment planning approaches in radiotherapy
title_full_unstemmed Characterization of automatic treatment planning approaches in radiotherapy
title_short Characterization of automatic treatment planning approaches in radiotherapy
title_sort characterization of automatic treatment planning approaches in radiotherapy
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8295841/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34307920
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2021.07.003
work_keys_str_mv AT wortelgeert characterizationofautomatictreatmentplanningapproachesinradiotherapy
AT eekhoutdave characterizationofautomatictreatmentplanningapproachesinradiotherapy
AT lamersemmy characterizationofautomatictreatmentplanningapproachesinradiotherapy
AT vanderbelrene characterizationofautomatictreatmentplanningapproachesinradiotherapy
AT kierskaren characterizationofautomatictreatmentplanningapproachesinradiotherapy
AT wiersmaterry characterizationofautomatictreatmentplanningapproachesinradiotherapy
AT janssentomas characterizationofautomatictreatmentplanningapproachesinradiotherapy
AT dameneugene characterizationofautomatictreatmentplanningapproachesinradiotherapy