AIM: To use plan analysis software to evaluate a class solution for prostate intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) planning. BACKGROUND: Class solutions for radiotherapy planning are increasingly being considered for streamlining planning. Plan analysis software provides an objective approach to evaluating radiotherapy plans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three iterations of a class solution for prostate IMRT planning (T1, T2 and Tfinal) were compared to the clinical plan of 74 prostate patients using radiotherapy plan analysis software (Plan IQ™, Sun Nuclear Corporation). A set of institution-specific plan quality metrics (scores) were established, based on best practice guidelines. RESULTS: For CTV coverage, Tfinal was not significantly different to the clinical plan. With the exception of 95% PTV coverage, Tfinal metrics were significantly better than the clinical plan for PTV coverage. In the scoring analysis, mean dose, 95% and 107% isodose coverage scores were similar for all the templates and clinical plan. 100% coverage of the CTV clinical plan was similar to Tfinal but scored higher than T1 and T2. There were no significant differences between Tfinal and the clinical plan for the metrics and scores associated with organs at risk. The total plan score was similar for Tfinal and the clinical plan, although the scores for volume receiving total dose outside the PTV were higher for Tfinal than for the clinical plan (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The radiotherapy plan analysis software was useful for evaluating a class solution for prostate IMRT planning and provided evidence that the class solution produced clinically acceptable plans for these patients.
AIM: To use plan analysis software to evaluate a class solution for prostate intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) planning. BACKGROUND: Class solutions for radiotherapy planning are increasingly being considered for streamlining planning. Plan analysis software provides an objective approach to evaluating radiotherapy plans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three iterations of a class solution for prostate IMRT planning (T1, T2 and Tfinal) were compared to the clinical plan of 74 prostate patients using radiotherapy plan analysis software (Plan IQ™, Sun Nuclear Corporation). A set of institution-specific plan quality metrics (scores) were established, based on best practice guidelines. RESULTS: For CTV coverage, Tfinal was not significantly different to the clinical plan. With the exception of 95% PTV coverage, Tfinal metrics were significantly better than the clinical plan for PTV coverage. In the scoring analysis, mean dose, 95% and 107% isodose coverage scores were similar for all the templates and clinical plan. 100% coverage of the CTV clinical plan was similar to Tfinal but scored higher than T1 and T2. There were no significant differences between Tfinal and the clinical plan for the metrics and scores associated with organs at risk. The total plan score was similar for Tfinal and the clinical plan, although the scores for volume receiving total dose outside the PTV were higher for Tfinal than for the clinical plan (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The radiotherapy plan analysis software was useful for evaluating a class solution for prostate IMRT planning and provided evidence that the class solution produced clinically acceptable plans for these patients.
Authors: Benjamin E Nelms; Greg Robinson; Jay Markham; Kyle Velasco; Steve Boyd; Sharath Narayan; James Wheeler; Mark L Sobczak Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2012-01-10