Tomas M Janssen1, Martijn Kusters2, Yibing Wang2, Geert Wortel2, Rene Monshouwer2, Eugène Damen2, Steven F Petit2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: t.janssen@nki.nl. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: With the advent of automatic treatment planning options like Pinnacle's Autoplanning (PAP), the challenge arises how to assess the quality of a plan that no dosimetrist did work on. The aim of this study was to assess plan quality consistency of PAP prostate cancer patients in clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 100 prostate cancer patients were included from NKI and 129 from RadboudUMC (RUMC). Per institute a previously developed [1] treatment planning QA model, based on overlap volume histograms, was trained on PAP plans to predict achievable dose metrics which were then compared to the clinical PAP plans. A threshold of 3 Gy (DVH dose parameters)/3% (DVH volume parameters) was used to detect outliers. For the outlier plans, the PAP technique was adjusted with the aim of meeting the threshold. RESULTS: The average difference between the prediction and the clinically achieved value was <0.5 Gy (mean dose parameters) and <1.2% (volume parameters), with standard deviation of 1.9 Gy/1.5% respectively. We found 8% (NKI)/25% (RUMC) of patients to exceed the 3 Gy/3% threshold, with deviations up to 6.7 Gy (mean dose rectum) and 6% (rectal wall V64Gy). In all cases the plans could be improved to fall within the thresholds, without compromising the other dose metrics. CONCLUSION: Independent treatment planning QA was used successfully to assess the quality of clinical PAP in a multi-institutional setting. Respectively 8% and 25% suboptimal clinical PAP plans were detected that all could be improved with replanning. Therefore we recommend the use of independent treatment plan QA in combination with PAP for prostate cancer patients.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: With the advent of automatic treatment planning options like Pinnacle's Autoplanning (PAP), the challenge arises how to assess the quality of a plan that no dosimetrist did work on. The aim of this study was to assess plan quality consistency of PAP prostate cancerpatients in clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 100 prostate cancerpatients were included from NKI and 129 from RadboudUMC (RUMC). Per institute a previously developed [1] treatment planning QA model, based on overlap volume histograms, was trained on PAP plans to predict achievable dose metrics which were then compared to the clinical PAP plans. A threshold of 3 Gy (DVH dose parameters)/3% (DVH volume parameters) was used to detect outliers. For the outlier plans, the PAP technique was adjusted with the aim of meeting the threshold. RESULTS: The average difference between the prediction and the clinically achieved value was <0.5 Gy (mean dose parameters) and <1.2% (volume parameters), with standard deviation of 1.9 Gy/1.5% respectively. We found 8% (NKI)/25% (RUMC) of patients to exceed the 3 Gy/3% threshold, with deviations up to 6.7 Gy (mean dose rectum) and 6% (rectal wall V64Gy). In all cases the plans could be improved to fall within the thresholds, without compromising the other dose metrics. CONCLUSION: Independent treatment planning QA was used successfully to assess the quality of clinical PAP in a multi-institutional setting. Respectively 8% and 25% suboptimal clinical PAP plans were detected that all could be improved with replanning. Therefore we recommend the use of independent treatment plan QA in combination with PAP for prostate cancerpatients.
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: 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
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
Authors: Martijn Kusters; Kentaro Miki; Liza Bouwmans; Karl Bzdusek; Peter van Kollenburg; Robert Jan Smeenk; René Monshouwer; Yasushi Nagata Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-02-03
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