Literature DB >> 27203748

Evaluation of plan quality assurance models for prostate cancer patients based on fully automatically generated Pareto-optimal treatment plans.

Yibing Wang1, Sebastiaan Breedveld1, Ben Heijmen1, Steven F Petit1,2.   

Abstract

IMRT planning with commercial Treatment Planning Systems (TPSs) is a trial-and-error process. Consequently, the quality of treatment plans may not be consistent among patients, planners and institutions. Recently, different plan quality assurance (QA) models have been proposed, that could flag and guide improvement of suboptimal treatment plans. However, the performance of these models was validated using plans that were created using the conventional trail-and-error treatment planning process. Consequently, it is challenging to assess and compare quantitatively the accuracy of different treatment planning QA models. Therefore, we created a golden standard dataset of consistently planned Pareto-optimal IMRT plans for 115 prostate patients. Next, the dataset was used to assess the performance of a treatment planning QA model that uses the overlap volume histogram (OVH). 115 prostate IMRT plans were fully automatically planned using our in-house developed TPS Erasmus-iCycle. An existing OVH model was trained on the plans of 58 of the patients. Next it was applied to predict DVHs of the rectum, bladder and anus of the remaining 57 patients. The predictions were compared with the achieved values of the golden standard plans for the rectum D mean, V 65, and V 75, and D mean of the anus and the bladder. For the rectum, the prediction errors (predicted-achieved) were only  -0.2  ±  0.9 Gy (mean  ±  1 SD) for D mean,-1.0  ±  1.6% for V 65, and  -0.4  ±  1.1% for V 75. For D mean of the anus and the bladder, the prediction error was 0.1  ±  1.6 Gy and 4.8  ±  4.1 Gy, respectively. Increasing the training cohort to 114 patients only led to minor improvements. A dataset of consistently planned Pareto-optimal prostate IMRT plans was generated. This dataset can be used to train new, and validate and compare existing treatment planning QA models, and has been made publicly available. The OVH model was highly accurate in predicting rectum and anus DVHs. For the bladder, larger prediction errors were observed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27203748     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/61/11/4268

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  7 in total

Review 1.  Automation in intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment planning-a review of recent innovations.

Authors:  Mohammad Hussein; Ben J M Heijmen; Dirk Verellen; Andrew Nisbet
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-09-04       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Predicting Patient-specific Dosimetric Benefits of Proton Therapy for Skull-base Tumors Using a Geometric Knowledge-based Method.

Authors:  David C Hall; Alexei V Trofimov; Brian A Winey; Norbert J Liebsch; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2017-02-14       Impact factor: 7.038

3.  Outlier identification in radiation therapy knowledge-based planning: A study of pelvic cases.

Authors:  Yang Sheng; Yaorong Ge; Lulin Yuan; Taoran Li; Fang-Fang Yin; Qingrong Jackie Wu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-09-30       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Class solutions for SABR-VMAT for high-risk prostate cancer with and without elective nodal irradiation.

Authors:  Sarah O S Osman; Prakash Jeevanandam; Nithya Kanakavelu; Denise M Irvine; Ciara A Lyons; Suneil Jain; Alan R Hounsell; Conor K McGarry
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2016-11-24       Impact factor: 3.481

5.  Treatment plan quality assessment for radiotherapy of rectal cancer patients using prediction of organ-at-risk dose metrics.

Authors:  Ana Vaniqui; Richard Canters; Femke Vaassen; Colien Hazelaar; Indra Lubken; Kirsten Kremer; Cecile Wolfs; Wouter van Elmpt
Journal:  Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol       Date:  2020-10-19

6.  A Decision Support Tool to Optimize Selection of Head and Neck Cancer Patients for Proton Therapy.

Authors:  Makbule Tambas; Hans Paul van der Laan; Arjen van der Schaaf; Roel J H M Steenbakkers; Johannes Albertus Langendijk
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-28       Impact factor: 6.639

7.  Contour-based lung dose prediction for breast proton therapy.

Authors:  Chuan Zeng; Kevin Sine; Dennis Mah
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2018-08-23       Impact factor: 2.102

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.