Joseph J Foy1, Robin Marsh2, Randall K Ten Haken2, Kelly C Younge2, Matthew Schipper3, Yilun Sun4, Dawn Owen2, Martha M Matuszak5. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 4. Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electronic address: marthamm@med.umich.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Planning for spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is time consuming, and differences in planner experience and technique result in discrepancies in plan quality between facilities. Here, knowledge-based planning is analyzed to determine if it may be effective in improving the quality and efficiency of spine SBRT planning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight spine SBRT cases were collected from the University of Michigan database and inverse planned to deliver 3 10-Gy fractions to the planning target volume (PTV). These plans were used to train a knowledge-based model (model A) using RapidPlan (Varian Medical Systems). The model was evaluated for outliers and validated in 10 independent cases. Each of these cases was manually planned to compare the quality of the model-generated plans with the manual plans. To further test the robustness of the software, 2 additional models (models B and C) were created with intentional outliers resulting from inconsistent contouring. RESULTS: Using models A, B, and C, all 10 generated plans met all dose objectives for modeled organs at risk (OARs) (spinal cord, cord planning risk volume, and esophagus) without user intervention. The target coverage and OAR dose sparing was improved or equivalent to manual planning by an expert dosimetrist; however, manually created plans typically required 1 to 1.5 hours to produce and model-generated plans required only 10 to 15 minutes with minimal human intervention to meet all dose objectives. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical quality of plans produced by RapidPlan were found to improve on or be similar to the manually created plans in terms of normal tissue objectives and PTV dose coverage and could be produced in a fraction of the time. RapidPlan is a robust technique that can improve planning efficiency in spine SBRT while maintaining or potentially improving plan quality and standardization across planners and centers.
PURPOSE: Planning for spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is time consuming, and differences in planner experience and technique result in discrepancies in plan quality between facilities. Here, knowledge-based planning is analyzed to determine if it may be effective in improving the quality and efficiency of spine SBRT planning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight spine SBRT cases were collected from the University of Michigan database and inverse planned to deliver 3 10-Gy fractions to the planning target volume (PTV). These plans were used to train a knowledge-based model (model A) using RapidPlan (Varian Medical Systems). The model was evaluated for outliers and validated in 10 independent cases. Each of these cases was manually planned to compare the quality of the model-generated plans with the manual plans. To further test the robustness of the software, 2 additional models (models B and C) were created with intentional outliers resulting from inconsistent contouring. RESULTS: Using models A, B, and C, all 10 generated plans met all dose objectives for modeled organs at risk (OARs) (spinal cord, cord planning risk volume, and esophagus) without user intervention. The target coverage and OAR dose sparing was improved or equivalent to manual planning by an expert dosimetrist; however, manually created plans typically required 1 to 1.5 hours to produce and model-generated plans required only 10 to 15 minutes with minimal human intervention to meet all dose objectives. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical quality of plans produced by RapidPlan were found to improve on or be similar to the manually created plans in terms of normal tissue objectives and PTV dose coverage and could be produced in a fraction of the time. RapidPlan is a robust technique that can improve planning efficiency in spine SBRT while maintaining or potentially improving plan quality and standardization across planners and centers.
Authors: Christos Moustakis; Mark K H Chan; Jinkoo Kim; Joakim Nilsson; Alanah Bergman; Tewfik J Bichay; Isabel Palazon Cano; Savino Cilla; Francesco Deodato; Raffaela Doro; Jürgen Dunst; Hans Theodor Eich; Pierre Fau; Ming Fong; Uwe Haverkamp; Simon Heinze; Guido Hildebrandt; Detlef Imhoff; Erik de Klerck; Janett Köhn; Ulrike Lambrecht; Britta Loutfi-Krauss; Fatemeh Ebrahimi; Laura Masi; Alan H Mayville; Ante Mestrovic; Maaike Milder; Alessio G Morganti; Dirk Rades; Ulla Ramm; Claus Rödel; Frank-Andre Siebert; Wilhelm den Toom; Lei Wang; Stefan Wurster; Achim Schweikard; Scott G Soltys; Samuel Ryu; Oliver Blanck Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2018-05-25 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: E Claridge Mackonis; J Sykes; N Hardcastle; A Espinoza; A Brown; G Perez; B Evans; H Sheehan; A Haworth Journal: Phys Eng Sci Med Date: 2022-09-05
Authors: Kelly C Younge; Robin B Marsh; Dawn Owen; Huaizhi Geng; Ying Xiao; Daniel E Spratt; Joseph Foy; Krithika Suresh; Q Jackie Wu; Fang-Fang Yin; Samuel Ryu; Martha M Matuszak Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-01-04 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: A Fogliata; L Cozzi; G Reggiori; A Stravato; F Lobefalo; C Franzese; D Franceschini; S Tomatis; M Scorsetti Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-10-30 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Jose R Teruel; Martha Malin; Elisa K Liu; Allison McCarthy; Kenneth Hu; Bejamin T Cooper; Erik P Sulman; Joshua S Silverman; David Barbee Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-09-23 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Kirsten van Gysen; James O'Toole; Andrew Le; Kenny Wu; Thilo Schuler; Brian Porter; John Kipritidis; John Atyeo; Chris Brown; Thomas Eade Journal: J Med Radiat Sci Date: 2020-09-03