Binbin Wu1, Martijn Kusters2, Martina Kunze-Busch2, Tim Dijkema2, Todd McNutt3, Giuseppe Sanguineti4, Karl Bzdusek5, Anatoly Dritschilo6, Dalong Pang6. 1. Department of Radiation Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, USA. Electronic address: wub@mskcc.org. 2. Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA. 4. Department of Radiotherapy, Istituto Nazionale Tumori Regina Elena, Roma, Italy. 5. Philips Radiation Oncology Systems, Madison, USA. 6. Department of Radiation Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To investigate (1) whether a plan library established at one institution can be applied for another institution's knowledge-based planning (KBP); (2) the performance of cross-institutional KBP compared to Auto-Planning Engine (APE). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Radboud University Medical Center (RUMC) provided 35 oropharyngeal cancer patients (68Gy to PTV68 and 50.3Gy to PTV50.3) with clinically-delivered and comparative APE plans. The Johns Hopkins University (JHU) contributed a three-dose-level plan library consisting of 179 clinically-delivered plans. MedStar Georgetown University Hospital (MGUH) contributed a KBP approach employing overlap-volume histogram (OVH-KBP), where the JHU library was used for guiding RUMC patients' KBP. Since clinical protocols adopted at RUMC and JHU are different and both approaches require protocol-specific planning parameters as initial input, 10 randomly selected patients from RUMC were set aside for deriving them. The finalized parameters were applied to the remaining 25 patients for OVH-KBP and APE plan generation. A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for statistical comparison. RESULTS: PTV68 and PTV50.3's V95 in OVH-KBP and APE were similar (p>0.36). Cord's D0.1 cc in OVH-KBP was reduced by 5.1Gy (p=0.0001); doses to other organs were similar (p>0.2). CONCLUSION: APE and OVH-KBP's plan quality is comparable. Institutional-protocol differences can be addressed to allow cross-institutional library sharing.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To investigate (1) whether a plan library established at one institution can be applied for another institution's knowledge-based planning (KBP); (2) the performance of cross-institutional KBP compared to Auto-Planning Engine (APE). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Radboud University Medical Center (RUMC) provided 35 oropharyngeal cancerpatients (68Gy to PTV68 and 50.3Gy to PTV50.3) with clinically-delivered and comparative APE plans. The Johns Hopkins University (JHU) contributed a three-dose-level plan library consisting of 179 clinically-delivered plans. MedStar Georgetown University Hospital (MGUH) contributed a KBP approach employing overlap-volume histogram (OVH-KBP), where the JHU library was used for guiding RUMC patients' KBP. Since clinical protocols adopted at RUMC and JHU are different and both approaches require protocol-specific planning parameters as initial input, 10 randomly selected patients from RUMC were set aside for deriving them. The finalized parameters were applied to the remaining 25 patients for OVH-KBP and APE plan generation. A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for statistical comparison. RESULTS: PTV68 and PTV50.3's V95 in OVH-KBP and APE were similar (p>0.36). Cord's D0.1 cc in OVH-KBP was reduced by 5.1Gy (p=0.0001); doses to other organs were similar (p>0.2). CONCLUSION: APE and OVH-KBP's plan quality is comparable. Institutional-protocol differences can be addressed to allow cross-institutional library sharing.
Authors: Ziwei Feng; Avani D Rao; Zhi Cheng; Eun Ji Shin; Joseph Moore; Lin Su; Seong-Hun Kim; John Wong; Amol Narang; Joseph M Herman; Todd McNutt; Dengwang Li; Kai Ding Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-07-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: N Patrik Brodin; Leslie Schulte; Christian Velten; William Martin; Sydney Shen; Jin Shen; Amar Basavatia; Nitin Ohri; Madhur K Garg; Colin Carpenter; Wolfgang A Tomé Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-04-23 Impact factor: 2.243
Authors: Kristen A McConnell; Tyler Marston; Brianna Elizabeth Zehren; Aziz Lirani; Dennis N Stanley; Aaron Bishop; Richard Crownover; Tony Eng; Zheng Shi; Ying Li; Diana Baacke; Neil Kirby; Karl Rasmussen; Niko Papanikolaou; Alonso N Gutierrez Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-01-01
Authors: J Krayenbuehl; M Zamburlini; S Ghandour; M Pachoud; S Tanadini-Lang; J Tol; M Guckenberger; W F A R Verbakel Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-09-10 Impact factor: 3.481