Literature DB >> 29970259

Fully automated, multi-criterial planning for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy - An international multi-center validation for prostate cancer.

Ben Heijmen1, Peter Voet2, Dennie Fransen3, Joan Penninkhof3, Maaike Milder3, Hafid Akhiat2, Pierluigi Bonomo4, Marta Casati4, Dietmar Georg5, Gregor Goldner5, Ann Henry6, John Lilley6, Frank Lohr7, Livia Marrazzo4, Stefania Pallotta4, Roberto Pellegrini2, Yvette Seppenwoolde5, Gabriele Simontacchi4, Volker Steil7, Florian Stieler7, Stuart Wilson6, Sebastiaan Breedveld3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Reported plan quality improvements with autoplanning of radiotherapy of the prostate and seminal vesicles are poor. A system for automated multi-criterial planning has been validated for this treatment in a large international multi-center study. The system is configured with training plans using a mechanism that strives for quality improvements relative to those plans.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Each of the four participating centers included thirty manually generated clinical Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy prostate plans (manVMAT). Ten plans were used for autoplanning training. The other twenty were compared with an automatically generated plan (autoVMAT). Plan evaluations considered dosimetric plan parameters and blinded side-by-side plan comparisons by clinicians.
RESULTS: With equivalent Planning Target Volume (PTV) V95%, D2%, D98%, and dose homogeneity autoVMAT was overall superior for rectum with median differences of 3.4 Gy (p < 0.001) in Dmean, 4.0% (p < 0.001) in V60Gy, and 1.5% (p = 0.001) in V75Gy, and for bladder Dmean (0.9 Gy, p < 0.001). Also the clinicians' plan comparisons pointed at an overall preference for autoVMAT. Advantages of autoVMAT were highly treatment center- and patient-specific with overall ranges for differences in rectum Dmean and V60Gy of [-4,12] Gy and [-2,15]%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Observed advantages of autoplanning were clinically relevant and larger than reported in the literature. The latter is likely related to the multi-criterial nature of the applied autoplanning algorithm, with for each center a dedicated configuration that aims at plan improvements relative to its (clinical) training plans. Large variations among patients in differences between manVMAT and autoVMAT point at inconsistencies in manual planning.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Automated multi-criterial treatment planning; Knowledge-based planning; Multi-center validation; Prostate; VMAT

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29970259     DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.06.023

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiother Oncol        ISSN: 0167-8140            Impact factor:   6.280


  15 in total

Review 1.  Complexity metrics for IMRT and VMAT plans: a review of current literature and applications.

Authors:  Sophie Chiavassa; Igor Bessieres; Magali Edouard; Michel Mathot; Alexandra Moignier
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-07-24       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Automatic configuration of the reference point method for fully automated multi-objective treatment planning applied to oropharyngeal cancer.

Authors:  Rens van Haveren; Ben J M Heijmen; Sebastiaan Breedveld
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2020-03-05       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Automated intensity modulated treatment planning: The expedited constrained hierarchical optimization (ECHO) system.

Authors:  Masoud Zarepisheh; Linda Hong; Ying Zhou; Jung Hun Oh; James G Mechalakos; Margie A Hunt; Gig S Mageras; Joseph O Deasy
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2019-05-29       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  A Model-Based Method for Assessment of Salivary Gland and Planning Target Volume Dosimetry in Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy Planning on Head-and-Neck Cancer.

Authors:  Honglai Zhang; Yijian Cao; Jeffrey Antone; Adam C Riegel; Maged Ghaly; Louis Potters; Abolghassem Jamshidi
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2019 Jul-Sep

5.  Adapting automated treatment planning configurations across international centres for prostate radiotherapy.

Authors:  Dale Roach; Geert Wortel; Cesar Ochoa; Henrik R Jensen; Eugene Damen; Philip Vial; Tomas Janssen; Christian Rønn Hansen
Journal:  Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol       Date:  2019-04-24

6.  Complementing Prostate SBRT VMAT With a Two-Beam Non-Coplanar IMRT Class Solution to Enhance Rectum and Bladder Sparing With Minimum Increase in Treatment Time.

Authors:  Abdul Wahab M Sharfo; Linda Rossi; Maarten L P Dirkx; Sebastiaan Breedveld; Shafak Aluwini; Ben J M Heijmen
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-03-19       Impact factor: 6.244

7.  A pilot study of machine-learning based automated planning for primary brain tumours.

Authors:  Derek S Tsang; Grace Tsui; Chris McIntosh; Thomas Purdie; Glenn Bauman; Hitesh Dama; Normand Laperriere; Barbara-Ann Millar; David B Shultz; Sameera Ahmed; Mohammad Khandwala; David C Hodgson
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2022-01-06       Impact factor: 3.481

8.  Dose Prediction Models Based on Geometric and Plan Optimization Parameter for Adjuvant Radiotherapy Planning Design in Cervical Cancer Radiotherapy.

Authors:  Hui Tang; Yazheng Chen; Jialiang Jiang; Kemin Li; Jing Zeng; Zhenyao Hu; Rutie Yin
Journal:  J Healthc Eng       Date:  2021-11-12       Impact factor: 2.682

9.  MR-Linac Radiotherapy - The Beam Angle Selection Problem.

Authors:  Rik Bijman; Linda Rossi; Tomas Janssen; Peter de Ruiter; Baukelien van Triest; Sebastiaan Breedveld; Jan-Jakob Sonke; Ben Heijmen
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 6.244

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.