Kazuki Kubo1, Hajime Monzen2, Kentaro Ishii3, Mikoto Tamura4, Ryu Kawamorita3, Iori Sumida5, Hirokazu Mizuno5, Yasumasa Nishimura6. 1. Department of Medical Physics, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kindai University, 377-2 Ohno-higashi, Osakasayama, Osaka 589-8511, Japan; Department of Radiation Oncology, Tane General Hospital, 1-12-21 Kujo-minami, Nishi-ku, Osaka 550-0025, Japan. 2. Department of Medical Physics, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kindai University, 377-2 Ohno-higashi, Osakasayama, Osaka 589-8511, Japan. Electronic address: hmon@med.kindai.ac.jp. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Tane General Hospital, 1-12-21 Kujo-minami, Nishi-ku, Osaka 550-0025, Japan. 4. Department of Medical Physics, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kindai University, 377-2 Ohno-higashi, Osakasayama, Osaka 589-8511, Japan. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamada-oka, Suita, Osaka 565-0871, Japan. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Kindai University, 377-2 Ohno-higashi, Osakasayama, Osaka 589-8511, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study evaluated whether RapidPlan based plans (RP plans) created by a single optimization, are usable in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: We used 51 previously administered VMAT plans to train a RP model. Thirty RP plans were created by a single optimization without planner intervention during optimization. Differences between RP plans and clinical manual optimization (CMO) plans created by an experienced planner for the same patients were analyzed (Wilcoxon tests) in terms of homogeneity index (HI), conformation number (CN), D95%, and D2% to planning target volume (PTV), mean dose, V50Gy, V70Gy, V75Gy, and V78Gy to rectum and bladder, monitor unit (MU), and multi-leaf collimator (MLC) sequence complexity. RESULTS: RP and CMO values for PTV D95%, PTV D2%, HI, and CN were significantly similar (p<0.05 for all). RP mean dose, V50Gy, and V70Gy to rectum were superior or comparable to CMO values; RP V75Gy and V78Gy were higher than in CMO plans (p<0.05). RP bladder dose-volume parameter values (except V78Gy) were lower than in CMO plans (p<0.05). MU values were RP: 730±55MU and CMO: 580±37MU (p<0.05); and MLC sequence complexity scores were RP: 0.25±0.02 and CMO: 0.35±0.03 (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: RP plans created by a single optimization were clinically acceptable in VMAT for patient with prostate cancer. Our simple model could reduce optimization time, independently of planner's skill and knowledge.
PURPOSE: This study evaluated whether RapidPlan based plans (RP plans) created by a single optimization, are usable in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: We used 51 previously administered VMAT plans to train a RP model. Thirty RP plans were created by a single optimization without planner intervention during optimization. Differences between RP plans and clinical manual optimization (CMO) plans created by an experienced planner for the same patients were analyzed (Wilcoxon tests) in terms of homogeneity index (HI), conformation number (CN), D95%, and D2% to planning target volume (PTV), mean dose, V50Gy, V70Gy, V75Gy, and V78Gy to rectum and bladder, monitor unit (MU), and multi-leaf collimator (MLC) sequence complexity. RESULTS: RP and CMO values for PTV D95%, PTV D2%, HI, and CN were significantly similar (p<0.05 for all). RP mean dose, V50Gy, and V70Gy to rectum were superior or comparable to CMO values; RP V75Gy and V78Gy were higher than in CMO plans (p<0.05). RP bladder dose-volume parameter values (except V78Gy) were lower than in CMO plans (p<0.05). MU values were RP: 730±55MU and CMO: 580±37MU (p<0.05); and MLC sequence complexity scores were RP: 0.25±0.02 and CMO: 0.35±0.03 (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: RP plans created by a single optimization were clinically acceptable in VMAT for patient with prostate cancer. Our simple model could reduce optimization time, independently of planner's skill and knowledge.
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: Yang Zhong; Lei Yu; Jun Zhao; Yingtao Fang; Yanju Yang; Zhiqiang Wu; Jiazhou Wang; Weigang Hu Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-06-24 Impact factor: 6.244