James A Kavanaugh1, Sarah Holler2, Todd A DeWees3, Clifford G Robinson4, Jeffrey D Bradley4, Puneeth Iyengar5, Kristin A Higgins6, Sasa Mutic4, Lindsey A Olsen7. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri. Electronic address: jkavanaugh@wustl.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. 3. Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 7. University of Colorado Health System, Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of using a single-institution, knowledge-based planning (KBP) model as a dosimetric plan quality control (QC) for multi-institutional clinical trials. The efficacy of this QC tool was retrospectively evaluated using a subset of plans submitted to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) study 0617. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A single KBP model was created using commercially available software (RapidPlan; Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) and data from 106 patients with non-small cell lung cancer who were treated at a single institution. All plans had prescriptions that ranged from 60 Gy in 30 fractions to 74 Gy in 37 fractions and followed the planning guidelines from RTOG 0617. Two sets of optimization objectives were created to produce different trade-offs using the single KBP model predictions: one prioritizing target coverage and a second prioritizing lung sparing (LS) while allowing an acceptable variation in target coverage. Three institutions submitted a high volume of clinical plans to RTOG 0617 and provided data on 25 patients, which were replanned using both sets of optimization objectives. Model-generated, dose-volume histogram predictions were used to identify patients who exceeded the lung clinical target volume (CTV) V20Gy >37% and would benefit from the LS objectives. Overall plan quality differences between KBP-generated plans and clinical plans were evaluated at RTOG 0617-defined dosimetric endpoints. RESULTS: Target coverage and organ at risk sparing was significantly improved for most KBP-generated plans compared with those from clinical trial data. The KBP model using prioritized target coverage objectives reduced heart Dmean and V40Gy by 2.1 Gy and 5.2%, respectively. Similarly, using LS objectives reduced the lung CTV Dmean and V20Gy by 2.0 Gy and 2.9%, respectively. The KBP predictions correctly identified all patients with lung CTV V20Gy > 37% (5 of 25 patients) and significantly reduced the dose to the lung CTV by applying the LS optimization objectives. CONCLUSIONS: A single-institution KBP model can be applied as a QC tool for multi-institutional clinical trials to improve overall plan quality and provide decision-support to determine the need for anatomy-based dosimetric trade-offs.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of using a single-institution, knowledge-based planning (KBP) model as a dosimetric plan quality control (QC) for multi-institutional clinical trials. The efficacy of this QC tool was retrospectively evaluated using a subset of plans submitted to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) study 0617. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A single KBP model was created using commercially available software (RapidPlan; Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) and data from 106 patients with non-small cell lung cancer who were treated at a single institution. All plans had prescriptions that ranged from 60 Gy in 30 fractions to 74 Gy in 37 fractions and followed the planning guidelines from RTOG 0617. Two sets of optimization objectives were created to produce different trade-offs using the single KBP model predictions: one prioritizing target coverage and a second prioritizing lung sparing (LS) while allowing an acceptable variation in target coverage. Three institutions submitted a high volume of clinical plans to RTOG 0617 and provided data on 25 patients, which were replanned using both sets of optimization objectives. Model-generated, dose-volume histogram predictions were used to identify patients who exceeded the lung clinical target volume (CTV) V20Gy >37% and would benefit from the LS objectives. Overall plan quality differences between KBP-generated plans and clinical plans were evaluated at RTOG 0617-defined dosimetric endpoints. RESULTS: Target coverage and organ at risk sparing was significantly improved for most KBP-generated plans compared with those from clinical trial data. The KBP model using prioritized target coverage objectives reduced heart Dmean and V40Gy by 2.1 Gy and 5.2%, respectively. Similarly, using LS objectives reduced the lung CTV Dmean and V20Gy by 2.0 Gy and 2.9%, respectively. The KBP predictions correctly identified all patients with lung CTV V20Gy > 37% (5 of 25 patients) and significantly reduced the dose to the lung CTV by applying the LS optimization objectives. CONCLUSIONS: A single-institution KBP model can be applied as a QC tool for multi-institutional clinical trials to improve overall plan quality and provide decision-support to determine the need for anatomy-based dosimetric trade-offs.
Authors: Kevin L Moore; Rachel Schmidt; Vitali Moiseenko; Lindsey A Olsen; Jun Tan; Ying Xiao; James Galvin; Stephanie Pugh; Michael J Seider; Adam P Dicker; Walter Bosch; Jeff Michalski; Sasa Mutic Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-04-03 Impact factor: 7.038
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
Authors: Jim P Tol; Alexander R Delaney; Max Dahele; Ben J Slotman; Wilko F A R Verbakel Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-01-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Alexander R Delaney; Jim P Tol; Max Dahele; Johan Cuijpers; Ben J Slotman; Wilko F A R Verbakel Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-11-10 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jeffrey D Bradley; Rebecca Paulus; Ritsuko Komaki; Gregory Masters; George Blumenschein; Steven Schild; Jeffrey Bogart; Chen Hu; Kenneth Forster; Anthony Magliocco; Vivek Kavadi; Yolanda I Garces; Samir Narayan; Puneeth Iyengar; Cliff Robinson; Raymond B Wynn; Christopher Koprowski; Joanne Meng; Jonathan Beitler; Rakesh Gaur; Walter Curran; Hak Choy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-01-16 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Bree R Eaton; Stephanie L Pugh; Jeffrey D Bradley; Greg Masters; Vivek S Kavadi; Samir Narayan; Lucien Nedzi; Cliff Robinson; Raymond B Wynn; Christopher Koprowski; Douglas W Johnson; Joanne Meng; Walter J Curran Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2016-05-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Kelly C Younge; Robin B Marsh; Dawn Owen; Huaizhi Geng; Ying Xiao; Daniel E Spratt; Joseph Foy; Krithika Suresh; Q Jackie Wu; Fang-Fang Yin; Samuel Ryu; Martha M Matuszak Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-01-04 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Kirsten van Gysen; Andrew Kneebone; Andrew Le; Kenny Wu; Annette Haworth; Regina Bromley; George Hruby; James O'Toole; Jeremy Booth; Chris Brown; Maria Pearse; Mark Sidhom; Kirsty Wiltshire; Colin Tang; Thomas Eade Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-05-13
Authors: David H Thomas; Brian Miller; Rachel Rabinovitch; Sarah Milgrom; Brian Kavanagh; Quentin Diot; Moyed Miften; Leah K Schubert Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-05-19 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Nicholas Hardcastle; Olivia Cook; Xenia Ray; Alisha Moore; Kevin L Moore; David Pryor; Alana Rossi; Farshad Foroudi; Tomas Kron; Shankar Siva Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-08-03 Impact factor: 3.481