INTRODUCTION: RapidPlan (RP), a knowledge-based planning system, aims to consistently improve plan quality and efficiency in radiotherapy. During the early stages of implementation, some of the challenges include knowing how to optimally train a model and how to integrate RP into a department. We discuss our experience with the implementation of RP into our institution. METHODS: We reviewed all patients planned using RP over a 7-month period following inception in our department. Our primary outcome was clinically acceptable plans (used for treatment) with secondary outcomes including model performance and a comparison of efficiency and plan quality between RP and manual planning (MP). RESULTS: Between November 2017 and May 2018, 496 patients were simulated, of which 217 (43.8%) had an available model. RP successfully created a clinically acceptable plan in 87.2% of eligible patients. The individual success of the 24 models ranged from 50% to 100%, with more than 90% success in 15 (62.5%) of the models. In 40% of plans, success was achieved on the 1st optimisation. The overall planning time with RP was reduced by up to 95% compared with MP times. The quality of the RP plans was at least equivalent to historical MP plans in terms of target coverage and organ at risk constraints. CONCLUSION: While initially time-consuming and resource-intensive to implement, plans optimised with RP demonstrate clinically acceptable plan quality, while significantly improving the efficiency of a department, suggesting RP and its application is a highly effective tool in clinical practice.
INTRODUCTION: RapidPlan (RP), a knowledge-based planning system, aims to consistently improve plan quality and efficiency in radiotherapy. During the early stages of implementation, some of the challenges include knowing how to optimally train a model and how to integrate RP into a department. We discuss our experience with the implementation of RP into our institution. METHODS: We reviewed all patients planned using RP over a 7-month period following inception in our department. Our primary outcome was clinically acceptable plans (used for treatment) with secondary outcomes including model performance and a comparison of efficiency and plan quality between RP and manual planning (MP). RESULTS: Between November 2017 and May 2018, 496 patients were simulated, of which 217 (43.8%) had an available model. RP successfully created a clinically acceptable plan in 87.2% of eligible patients. The individual success of the 24 models ranged from 50% to 100%, with more than 90% success in 15 (62.5%) of the models. In 40% of plans, success was achieved on the 1st optimisation. The overall planning time with RP was reduced by up to 95% compared with MP times. The quality of the RP plans was at least equivalent to historical MP plans in terms of target coverage and organ at risk constraints. CONCLUSION: While initially time-consuming and resource-intensive to implement, plans optimised with RP demonstrate clinically acceptable plan quality, while significantly improving the efficiency of a department, suggesting RP and its application is a highly effective tool in clinical practice.
Authors: Joseph J Foy; Robin Marsh; Randall K Ten Haken; Kelly C Younge; Matthew Schipper; Yilun Sun; Dawn Owen; Martha M Matuszak Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-03-02
Authors: Amy T Y Chang; Albert W M Hung; Fion W K Cheung; Michael C H Lee; Oscar S H Chan; Helen Philips; Yung-Tang Cheng; Wai-Tong Ng Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Charles N Catton; Himu Lukka; Chu-Shu Gu; Jarad M Martin; Stéphane Supiot; Peter W M Chung; Glenn S Bauman; Jean-Paul Bahary; Shahida Ahmed; Patrick Cheung; Keen Hun Tai; Jackson S Wu; Matthew B Parliament; Theodoros Tsakiridis; Tom B Corbett; Colin Tang; Ian S Dayes; Padraig Warde; Tim K Craig; Jim A Julian; Mark N Levine Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael J Zelefsky; Zvi Fuks; Margie Hunt; Yoshiya Yamada; Christine Marion; C Clifton Ling; Howard Amols; E S Venkatraman; Steven A Leibel Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Alan Pollack; Gail Walker; Eric M Horwitz; Robert Price; Steven Feigenberg; Andre A Konski; Radka Stoyanova; Benjamin Movsas; Richard E Greenberg; Robert G Uzzo; Charlie Ma; Mark K Buyyounouski Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-10-07 Impact factor: 44.544
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: A Fogliata; G Reggiori; A Stravato; F Lobefalo; C Franzese; D Franceschini; S Tomatis; P Mancosu; M Scorsetti; L Cozzi Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-04-27 Impact factor: 3.481