Literature DB >> 28549556

Evaluation of a commercial automatic treatment planning system for prostate cancers.

Kanabu Nawa1, Akihiro Haga2, Akihiro Nomoto2, Raniel A Sarmiento3, Kenshiro Shiraishi4, Hideomi Yamashita2, Keiichi Nakagawa2.   

Abstract

Recent developments in Radiation Oncology treatment planning have led to the development of software packages that facilitate automated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning. Such solutions include site-specific modules, plan library methods, and algorithm-based methods. In this study, the plan quality for prostate cancer generated by the Auto-Planning module of the Pinnacle3 radiation therapy treatment planning system (v9.10, Fitchburg, WI) is retrospectively evaluated. The Auto-Planning module of Pinnacle3 uses a progressive optimization algorithm. Twenty-three prostate cancer cases, which had previously been planned and treated without lymph node irradiation, were replanned using the Auto-Planning module. Dose distributions were statistically compared with those of manual planning by the paired t-test at 5% significance level. Auto-Planning was performed without any manual intervention. Planning target volume (PTV) dose and dose to rectum were comparable between Auto-Planning and manual planning. The former, however, significantly reduced the dose to the bladder and femurs. Regression analysis was performed to examine the correlation between volume overlap between bladder and PTV divided by the total bladder volume and resultant V70. The findings showed that manual planning typically exhibits a logistic way for dose constraint, whereas Auto-Planning shows a more linear tendency. By calculating the Akaike information criterion (AIC) to validate the statistical model, a reduction of interoperator variation in Auto-Planning was shown. We showed that, for prostate cancer, the Auto-Planning module provided plans that are better than or comparable with those of manual planning. By comparing our results with those previously reported for head and neck cancer treatment, we recommend the homogeneous plan quality generated by the Auto-Planning module, which exhibits less dependence on anatomic complexity.
Copyright © 2017 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Automated planning optimization; Interoperator variation; Plan quality; Prostate cancer

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28549556     DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2017.03.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Dosim        ISSN: 1873-4022            Impact factor:   1.482


  21 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.  Impact of dosimetric differences between CT and MRI derived target volumes for external beam cervical cancer radiotherapy.

Authors:  Vikneswary Batumalai; Siobhan Burke; Dale Roach; Karen Lim; Glen Dinsdale; Michael Jameson; Cesar Ochoa; Jacqueline Veera; Lois Holloway; Shalini Vinod
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-06-18       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Volumetric and dosimetric comparison of organs at risk between the prone and supine positions in postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Subaru Sawayanagi; Hideomi Yamashita; Mami Ogita; Tomoki Kiritoshi; Takahiro Nakamoto; Osamu Abe; Keiichi Nakagawa
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2018-04-17       Impact factor: 3.481

4.  Personalized setting of plan parameters using feasibility dose volume histogram for auto-planning in Pinnacle system.

Authors:  Wenlong Xia; Fei Han; Jiayun Chen; Junjie Miao; Jianrong Dai
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-05-04       Impact factor: 2.102

5.  Can the Student Outperform the Master? A Plan Comparison Between Pinnacle Auto-Planning and Eclipse knowledge-Based RapidPlan Following a Prostate-Bed Plan Competition.

Authors:  April Smith; Andrew Granatowicz; Cole Stoltenberg; Shuo Wang; Xiaoying Liang; Charles A Enke; Andrew O Wahl; Sumin Zhou; Dandan Zheng
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2019 Jan-Dec

6.  Evaluation of auto-planning in IMRT and VMAT for head and neck cancer.

Authors:  Zi Ouyang; Zhilei Liu Shen; Eric Murray; Matt Kolar; Danielle LaHurd; Naichang Yu; Nikhil Joshi; Shlomo Koyfman; Karl Bzdusek; Ping Xia
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2019-07-04       Impact factor: 2.102

7.  Comparison of dose metrics between automated and manual radiotherapy planning for advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer with volumetric modulated arc therapy.

Authors:  Iris H P Creemers; Johannes M A M Kusters; Peter G M van Kollenburg; Liza C W Bouwmans; Dominic A X Schinagl; Johan Bussink
Journal:  Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol       Date:  2019-03-18

8.  Dosimetric Evaluation of Pinnacle's Automated Treatment Planning Software to Manually Planned Treatments.

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

9.  Comprehensive Comparison of Progressive Optimization Algorithm Based Automatic Plan and Manually Planned Treatment Technique for Cervical-Thoracic Esophageal Cancers.

Authors:  Yongqiang Zhou; Xiaojun Xiang; Jianping Xiong; Changfei Gong
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2020 Jan-Dec

10.  Personalized Treatment Planning Automation in Prostate Cancer Radiation Oncology: A Comprehensive Dosimetric Study.

Authors:  Savino Cilla; Carmela Romano; Vittoria E Morabito; Gabriella Macchia; Milly Buwenge; Nicola Dinapoli; Luca Indovina; Lidia Strigari; Alessio G Morganti; Vincenzo Valentini; Francesco Deodato
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 6.244

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.