Literature DB >> 31641339

Evaluation of plan quality improvements in PlanIQ-guided Autoplanning.

Bojarajan Perumal1,2, Harikrishna Etti Sundaresan2, Vaitheeswaran Ranganathan1, Natarajan Ramar1,3, Gipson Joe Anto1,2, Samir Ranjan Meher3.   

Abstract

AIM: Philips recently integrated PlanIQ with Autoplan® in Pinnacle3 TPS (V16.2). The objective of the present work is to quantitatively demonstrate how this integration improves the plan quality.
BACKGROUND: Pinnacle3 Autoplan® is the tool that generates the treatment plans with clinically acceptable plan quality with less manual intervention. In the recent past, a new tool called PlanIQ (Sun Nuclear Corp.) was introduced for a priori estimation of the best possible sparing of an organ at risk (OAR) for a given patient anatomy. Philips has recently integrated PlanIQ tool with Autoplan® for a seamless and efficient planning workflow.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We have performed this evaluation in Pinnacle3 TPS (V.16.2) for the VMAT treatment technique. All plans were created using Varian True beam machine with the dual arc technique. Basically, we created two sets of VMAT plans using 6 MV photons. In the first set of VMAT plans (AP_RTOG), we used OAR goals from either RTOG guidelines to perform optimization using Autoplan®. Subsequently, we exported the same dataset to the PlanIQ system to perform feasibility analysis on the OAR goals. These newly obtained OAR goals from PlanIQ were used to generate the other set of plans (AP_PlanIQ plans). We compared the dosimetric results from these two sets of plans in five cases, such as brain, head & neck, lung, abdomen and prostate.
RESULTS: We compared the dosimetric results for AP_RTOG and AP_PlanIQ plans. We used RTOG guidelines to evaluate the plans and observed that while both sets of plans were meeting the RTOG guidelines in terms of OAR sparing, the AP_PlanIQ plans were significantly better in terms of OAR sparing as compared to AP_RTOG plans without any compromise in the target coverage.
CONCLUSION: The results indicate that, although Autoplan helps achieve the user-defined goals without much manual intervention, the plan quality (OAR sparing) can be significantly improved without taking many iterative steps when PlanIQ suggested clinical goals are used in the Autoplan-based optimization. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: At present, there are no published material available about the efficacy of the integration of PlanIQ with Autoplanning®. In the present work, our objective is to evaluate the improvements in plan quality resulting from this integration.
© 2019 Greater Poland Cancer Centre. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Autoplan®; IMRT; Optimization; PlanIQ; Priori-Estimation of objectives; VMAT

Year:  2019        PMID: 31641339      PMCID: PMC6796777          DOI: 10.1016/j.rpor.2019.08.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother        ISSN: 1507-1367


  12 in total

1.  Optimization of importance factors in inverse planning.

Authors:  L Xing; J G Li; S Donaldson; Q T Le; A L Boyer
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  A method for a priori estimation of best feasible DVH for organs-at-risk: Validation for head and neck VMAT planning.

Authors:  Saeed Ahmed; Benjamin Nelms; Dawn Gintz; Jimmy Caudell; Geoffrey Zhang; Eduardo G Moros; Vladimir Feygelman
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-08-31       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Using overlap volume histogram and IMRT plan data to guide and automate VMAT planning: a head-and-neck case study.

Authors:  Binbin Wu; Dalong Pang; Patricio Simari; Russell Taylor; Giuseppe Sanguineti; Todd McNutt
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  A shape relationship descriptor for radiation therapy planning.

Authors:  Michael Kazhdan; Patricio Simari; Todd McNutt; Binbin Wu; Robert Jacques; Ming Chuang; Russell Taylor
Journal:  Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv       Date:  2009

5.  A sensitivity-guided algorithm for automated determination of IMRT objective function parameters.

Authors:  Xiaodong Zhang; Xiaochun Wang; Lei Dong; Helen Liu; Radhe Mohan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Data-driven approach to generating achievable dose-volume histogram objectives in intensity-modulated radiotherapy planning.

Authors:  Binbin Wu; Francesco Ricchetti; Giuseppe Sanguineti; Michael Kazhdan; Patricio Simari; Robert Jacques; Russell Taylor; Todd McNutt
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2010-08-26       Impact factor: 7.038

7.  Automatic planning of head and neck treatment plans.

Authors:  Irene Hazell; Karl Bzdusek; Prashant Kumar; Christian R Hansen; Anders Bertelsen; Jesper G Eriksen; Jørgen Johansen; Carsten Brink
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2016-01-08       Impact factor: 2.102

8.  Development of a neuro-fuzzy technique for automated parameter optimization of inverse treatment planning.

Authors:  Florian Stieler; Hui Yan; Frank Lohr; Frederik Wenz; Fang-Fang Yin
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2009-09-25       Impact factor: 3.481

9.  Automated IMRT planning with regional optimization using planning scripts.

Authors:  Ilma Xhaferllari; Eugene Wong; Karl Bzdusek; Michael Lock; Jeff Chen
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2013-01-07       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  Assessment of PlanIQ Feasibility DVH for head and neck treatment planning.

Authors:  David V Fried; Bhishamjit S Chera; Shiva K Das
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2017-08-30       Impact factor: 2.102

View more
  7 in total

1.  Using deep learning to predict beam-tunable Pareto optimal dose distribution for intensity-modulated radiation therapy.

Authors:  Gyanendra Bohara; Azar Sadeghnejad Barkousaraie; Steve Jiang; Dan Nguyen
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2020-08-02       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Personalized setting of plan parameters using feasibility dose volume histogram for auto-planning in Pinnacle system.

Authors:  Wenlong Xia; Fei Han; Jiayun Chen; Junjie Miao; Jianrong Dai
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-05-04       Impact factor: 2.102

3.  Analysis of prostate intensity- and volumetric-modulated arc radiation therapy planning quality with PlanIQTM.

Authors:  Motoharu Sasaki; Yuji Nakaguuchi; Takeshi Kamomae; Akira Tsuzuki; Satoshi Kobuchi; Kenmei Kuwahara; Shoji Ueda; Yuto Endo; Hitoshi Ikushima
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2021-03-25       Impact factor: 2.102

4.  Systematic quantitative evaluation of Plan-IQ for intensity-modulated radiation therapy after modified radical mastectomy.

Authors:  Kunzhi Chen; Zhuangzhuang Zheng; Lijuan Ding; Na Tao; Libo Wang; Wenming Xia; Huidong Wang; Xin Jiang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-11-08       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Evaluation of two independent dose prediction methods to personalize the automated radiotherapy planning process for prostate cancer.

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

6.  Refining complex re-irradiation dosimetry through feasibility benchmarking and analysis for informed treatment planning.

Authors:  Seth R Duffy; Yiran Zheng; Jessica Muenkel; Rodney J Ellis; Tanvir N Baig; Brian Krancevic; Christian B Langmack; Kevin D Kelley; Serah Choi
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-12-03       Impact factor: 2.243

7.  Characterization of automatic treatment planning approaches in radiotherapy.

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
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.