Stefan Speer1, Andreas Klein2, Lukas Kober3, Alexander Weiss4, Indra Yohannes5, Christoph Bert4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Universitätsstraße 27, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. stefan.speer@uk-erlangen.de. 2. EKS Engineering GmbH, Dr.-Mack-Straße 88, 90762, Fürth, Germany. 3. Strahlentherapie Tauber-Franken, Uhlandstraße 7, 97980, Bad Mergentheim, Germany. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Universitätsstraße 27, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. 5. Rinecker Proton Therapy Center, Schäftlarnstraße 133, 81371, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques are now standard practice. IMRT or volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) allow treatment of the tumor while simultaneously sparing organs at risk. Nevertheless, treatment plan quality still depends on the physicist's individual skills, experiences, and personal preferences. It would therefore be advantageous to automate the planning process. This possibility is offered by the Pinnacle3 treatment planning system (Philips Healthcare, Hamburg, Germany) via its scripting language or Auto-Planning (AP) module. MATERIALS AND METHODS: AP module results were compared to in-house scripts and manually optimized treatment plans for standard head and neck cancer plans. Multiple treatment parameters were scored to judge plan quality (100 points = optimum plan). Patients were initially planned manually by different physicists and re-planned using scripts or AP. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Script-based head and neck plans achieved a mean of 67.0 points and were, on average, superior to manually created (59.1 points) and AP plans (62.3 points). Moreover, they are characterized by reproducibility and lower standard deviation of treatment parameters. Even less experienced staff are able to create at least a good starting point for further optimization in a short time. However, for particular plans, experienced planners perform even better than scripts or AP. Experienced-user input is needed when setting up scripts or AP templates for the first time. Moreover, some minor drawbacks exist, such as the increase of monitor units (+35.5% for scripted plans). CONCLUSION: On average, automatically created plans are superior to manually created treatment plans. For particular plans, experienced physicists were able to perform better than scripts or AP; thus, the benefit is greatest when time is short or staff inexperienced.
BACKGROUND: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques are now standard practice. IMRT or volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) allow treatment of the tumor while simultaneously sparing organs at risk. Nevertheless, treatment plan quality still depends on the physicist's individual skills, experiences, and personal preferences. It would therefore be advantageous to automate the planning process. This possibility is offered by the Pinnacle3 treatment planning system (Philips Healthcare, Hamburg, Germany) via its scripting language or Auto-Planning (AP) module. MATERIALS AND METHODS: AP module results were compared to in-house scripts and manually optimized treatment plans for standard head and neck cancer plans. Multiple treatment parameters were scored to judge plan quality (100 points = optimum plan). Patients were initially planned manually by different physicists and re-planned using scripts or AP. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Script-based head and neck plans achieved a mean of 67.0 points and were, on average, superior to manually created (59.1 points) and AP plans (62.3 points). Moreover, they are characterized by reproducibility and lower standard deviation of treatment parameters. Even less experienced staff are able to create at least a good starting point for further optimization in a short time. However, for particular plans, experienced planners perform even better than scripts or AP. Experienced-user input is needed when setting up scripts or AP templates for the first time. Moreover, some minor drawbacks exist, such as the increase of monitor units (+35.5% for scripted plans). CONCLUSION: On average, automatically created plans are superior to manually created treatment plans. For particular plans, experienced physicists were able to perform better than scripts or AP; thus, the benefit is greatest when time is short or staff inexperienced.
Authors: Lawrence B Marks; Ellen D Yorke; Andrew Jackson; Randall K Ten Haken; Louis S Constine; Avraham Eisbruch; Søren M Bentzen; Jiho Nam; Joseph O Deasy Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Christian Thieke; Karl-Heinz Küfer; Michael Monz; Alexander Scherrer; Fernando Alonso; Uwe Oelfke; Peter E Huber; Jürgen Debus; Thomas Bortfeld Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2007-09-24 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Binbin Wu; Francesco Ricchetti; Giuseppe Sanguineti; Misha Kazhdan; Patricio Simari; Ming Chuang; Russell Taylor; Robert Jacques; Todd McNutt Journal: Med Phys Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Eleonoor A R Theunissen; Sophie C J Bosma; Charlotte L Zuur; René Spijker; Sieberen van der Baan; Wouter A Dreschler; Jan Paul de Boer; Alfons J M Balm; Coen R N Rasch Journal: Head Neck Date: 2014-01-29 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Yabo Fu; Hao Zhang; Eric D Morris; Carri K Glide-Hurst; Suraj Pai; Alberto Traverso; Leonard Wee; Ibrahim Hadzic; Per-Ivar Lønne; Chenyang Shen; Tian Liu; Xiaofeng Yang Journal: IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci Date: 2021-08-24
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
Authors: Geert Wortel; Dave Eekhout; Emmy Lamers; René van der Bel; Karen Kiers; Terry Wiersma; Tomas Janssen; Eugène Damen Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-07-13