Cargando…

Contour similarity and its implication on inverse prostate SBRT treatment planning

PURPOSE: Success of auto‐segmentation is measured by the similarity between auto and manual contours that is often quantified by Dice coefficient (DC). The dosimetric impact of contour variability on inverse planning has been rarely reported. The main aim of this study is to investigate whether auto...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yan, Chenyu, Guo, Bingqi, Tendulkar, Rahul, Xia, Ping
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9924104/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36300837
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13809
_version_ 1784887825821335552
author Yan, Chenyu
Guo, Bingqi
Tendulkar, Rahul
Xia, Ping
author_facet Yan, Chenyu
Guo, Bingqi
Tendulkar, Rahul
Xia, Ping
author_sort Yan, Chenyu
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Success of auto‐segmentation is measured by the similarity between auto and manual contours that is often quantified by Dice coefficient (DC). The dosimetric impact of contour variability on inverse planning has been rarely reported. The main aim of this study is to investigate whether automatically generated organs‐at‐risk (OARs) could be used in inverse prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) planning and whether the dosimetric parameters are still clinically acceptable after radiation oncologists modify the OARs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Planning computed tomography images from 10 patients treated with SBRT for prostate cancer were selected and automatically segmented by commercially available atlas‐based software. The automatically generated OAR contours were compared with the manually drawn contours. Two volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans, autoRec‐VMAT (where only automatically generated rectums were used in optimization) and autoAll‐VMAT (where automatically generated OARs were used in inverse optimization) were generated. Dosimetric parameters based on the manually drawn PTV and OARs were compared with the clinically approved plans. RESULTS: The DCs for the rectum contours varied from 0.55 to 0.74 with a mean value of 0.665. Differences of D (95) of the PTV between autoRec‐VMAT and manu‐VMAT plans varied from 0.03% to −2.85% with a mean value of −0.64%. Differences of D (0.03cc) of manual rectum between the two plans varied from −0.86% to 9.94% with a mean value of 2.71%. D (95) of PTV between autoAll‐VMAT and manu‐VMAT plans varied from 0.28% to −2.9% with a mean value −0.83%. Differences of D (0.03cc) of manual rectum between the two plans varied from −0.76% to 6.72% with a mean value of 2.62%. CONCLUSION: Our study implies that it is possible to use unedited automatically generated OARs to perform initial inverse prostate SBRT planning. After radiation oncologists modify/approve the OARs, the plan qualities based on the manually drawn OARs are still clinically acceptable, and a re‐optimization may not be needed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9924104
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99241042023-02-14 Contour similarity and its implication on inverse prostate SBRT treatment planning Yan, Chenyu Guo, Bingqi Tendulkar, Rahul Xia, Ping J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics PURPOSE: Success of auto‐segmentation is measured by the similarity between auto and manual contours that is often quantified by Dice coefficient (DC). The dosimetric impact of contour variability on inverse planning has been rarely reported. The main aim of this study is to investigate whether automatically generated organs‐at‐risk (OARs) could be used in inverse prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) planning and whether the dosimetric parameters are still clinically acceptable after radiation oncologists modify the OARs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Planning computed tomography images from 10 patients treated with SBRT for prostate cancer were selected and automatically segmented by commercially available atlas‐based software. The automatically generated OAR contours were compared with the manually drawn contours. Two volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans, autoRec‐VMAT (where only automatically generated rectums were used in optimization) and autoAll‐VMAT (where automatically generated OARs were used in inverse optimization) were generated. Dosimetric parameters based on the manually drawn PTV and OARs were compared with the clinically approved plans. RESULTS: The DCs for the rectum contours varied from 0.55 to 0.74 with a mean value of 0.665. Differences of D (95) of the PTV between autoRec‐VMAT and manu‐VMAT plans varied from 0.03% to −2.85% with a mean value of −0.64%. Differences of D (0.03cc) of manual rectum between the two plans varied from −0.86% to 9.94% with a mean value of 2.71%. D (95) of PTV between autoAll‐VMAT and manu‐VMAT plans varied from 0.28% to −2.9% with a mean value −0.83%. Differences of D (0.03cc) of manual rectum between the two plans varied from −0.76% to 6.72% with a mean value of 2.62%. CONCLUSION: Our study implies that it is possible to use unedited automatically generated OARs to perform initial inverse prostate SBRT planning. After radiation oncologists modify/approve the OARs, the plan qualities based on the manually drawn OARs are still clinically acceptable, and a re‐optimization may not be needed. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-10-27 /pmc/articles/PMC9924104/ /pubmed/36300837 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13809 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://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
Yan, Chenyu
Guo, Bingqi
Tendulkar, Rahul
Xia, Ping
Contour similarity and its implication on inverse prostate SBRT treatment planning
title Contour similarity and its implication on inverse prostate SBRT treatment planning
title_full Contour similarity and its implication on inverse prostate SBRT treatment planning
title_fullStr Contour similarity and its implication on inverse prostate SBRT treatment planning
title_full_unstemmed Contour similarity and its implication on inverse prostate SBRT treatment planning
title_short Contour similarity and its implication on inverse prostate SBRT treatment planning
title_sort contour similarity and its implication on inverse prostate sbrt treatment planning
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9924104/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36300837
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13809
work_keys_str_mv AT yanchenyu contoursimilarityanditsimplicationoninverseprostatesbrttreatmentplanning
AT guobingqi contoursimilarityanditsimplicationoninverseprostatesbrttreatmentplanning
AT tendulkarrahul contoursimilarityanditsimplicationoninverseprostatesbrttreatmentplanning
AT xiaping contoursimilarityanditsimplicationoninverseprostatesbrttreatmentplanning