Knowledge-based treatment planning: An inter-technique and inter-system feasibility study for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Helical Tomotherapy (HT) plans were used to create two RapidPlan knowledge-based (KB) models to generate plans with different techniques and to guide the optimization in a different treatment planning system for prostate plans. Feasibility and performance of these models were evaluated.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

two sets of 35 low risk (LR) and 30 intermediate risk (IR) prostate cancer cases who underwent HT treatments were selected to train RapidPlan models. The KB predicted constraints were used to perform new 20KB plans using RapidArc technique (KB-RA) (inter-technique validation), and to optimise 20 new HT (KB-HT) plans in the Tomoplan (inter-system validation). For each validation modality, KB plans were benchmarked with the manual plans created by an expert planner (EP).

RESULTS

RapidPlan was successfully configured using HT plans. The KB-RA plans fulfilled the clinical dose-volume requirements in 100% and 92% of cases for planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OARs), respectively. For KB-HT plans these percentages were found to be a bit lower: 90% for PTVs and 86% for OARs. In comparison to EP plans, the KB-RA plans produced higher bladder doses for both LR and IR, and higher rectum doses for LR. KB-HT and EP plans produced similar results.

CONCLUSION

RapidPlan can be trained to create models by using plans of a different treatment modality. These models were suitable for generating clinically acceptable plans for inter-technique and inter-system applications. The use of KB models based on plans of consolidated technique could be useful with a new treatment modality.

Advantages and limitations of navigation-based multicriteria optimization (MCO) for localized prostate cancer IMRT planning

Efficacy of inverse planning is becoming increasingly important for advanced radiotherapy techniques. This study's aims were to validate multicriteria optimization (MCO) in RayStation (v2.4, RaySearch Laboratories, Sweden) against standard intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) optimization in Oncentra (v4.1, Nucletron BV, the Netherlands) and characterize dose differences due to conversion of navigated MCO plans into deliverable multileaf collimator apertures. Step-and-shoot IMRT plans were created for 10 patients with localized prostate cancer using both standard optimization and MCO. Acceptable standard IMRT plans with minimal average rectal dose were chosen for comparison with deliverable MCO plans. The trade-off was, for the MCO plans, managed through a user interface that permits continuous navigation between fluence-based plans. Navigated MCO plans were made deliverable at incremental steps along a trajectory between maximal target homogeneity and maximal rectal sparing. Dosimetric differences between navigated and deliverable MCO plans were also quantified. MCO plans, chosen as acceptable under navigated and deliverable conditions resulted in similar rectal sparing compared with standard optimization (33.7 ± 1.8 Gy vs 35.5 ± 4.2 Gy, p = 0.117). The dose differences between navigated and deliverable MCO plans increased as higher priority was placed on rectal avoidance. If the best possible deliverable MCO was chosen, a significant reduction in rectal dose was observed in comparison with standard optimization (30.6 ± 1.4 Gy vs 35.5 ± 4.2 Gy, p = 0.047). Improvements were, however, to some extent, at the expense of less conformal dose distributions, which resulted in significantly higher doses to the bladder for 2 of the 3 tolerance levels. In conclusion, similar IMRT plans can be created for patients with prostate cancer using MCO compared with standard optimization. Limitations exist within MCO regarding conversion of navigated plans to deliverable apertures, particularly for plans that emphasize avoidance of critical structures. Minimizing these differences would result in better quality treatments for patients with prostate cancer who were treated with radiotherapy using MCO plans.

Treatment plan comparison using grading analysis based on clinical judgment

PURPOSE

In this work we explore a method named clinical grading analysis (CGA) which is based on clinical assessments performed by radiation oncologists (ROs). The purpose is to investigate how useful the method is for treatment plan comparisons, and how the CGA results correlate with dosimetric evaluation parameters, traditionally used for treatment plan comparisons.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Helical tomotherapy (HTT) and seven-beam step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiation therapy (SS-IMRT) plans were compared and assessed by 10 experienced ROs for 23 patient cases. A CGA was performed where the plans were graded based on how the ROs thought they compared to each other. The resulting grades from the CGA were analyzed and compared to dose-volume statistics and equivalent uniform dose (EUD) data.

RESULTS

For eight of the 23 cases the CGA revealed a significant difference between the HTT and the SS-IMRT plans, five cases were in favor of HTT, and three in favor of SS-IMRT. Comparing the dose-volume statistics and EUD-data with the result from the CGA showed that CGA results correlated well with dose-volume statistics for cases regarding difference in target coverage or doses to organs at risk. The CGA results also correlated well with EUD-data for cases with difference in clinical target volume (CTV) coverage but the correlation for cases with difference in planning target volume (PTV) coverage was not as clear.

CONCLUSIONS

This study presents CGA as a useful method of comparing radiotherapy treatment plans. The proposed method offers a formalized way of introducing and evaluating the implementation of new radiotherapy techniques in a clinical setting. The CGA identify patients that have a clinical benefit of one or the other of the advanced treatment techniques available to them, i.e. in this study HTT and SS-IMRT, which facilitates a more optimal use of a clinics' advanced treatment resources.

Conversion of helical tomotherapy plans to step-and-shoot IMRT plans--Pareto front evaluation of plans from a new treatment planning system

PURPOSE

The resulting plans from a new type of treatment planning system called SharePlan have been studied. This software allows for the conversion of treatment plans generated in a TomoTherapy system for helical delivery, into plans deliverable on C-arm linear accelerators (linacs), which is of particular interest for clinics with a single TomoTherapy unit. The purpose of this work was to evaluate and compare the plans generated in the SharePlan system with the original TomoTherapy plans and with plans produced in our clinical treatment planning system for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) on C-arm linacs. In addition, we have analyzed how the agreement between SharePlan and TomoTherapy plans depends on the number of beams and the total number of segments used in the optimization.

METHODS

Optimized plans were generated for three prostate and three head-and-neck (H&N) cases in the TomoTherapy system, and in our clinical treatment planning systems (TPS) used for IMRT planning with step-and-shoot delivery. The TomoTherapy plans were converted into step-and-shoot IMRT plans in SharePlan. For each case, a large number of Pareto optimal plans were created to compare plans generated in SharePlan with plans generated in the Tomotherapy system and in the clinical TPS. In addition, plans were generated in SharePlan for the three head-and-neck cases to evaluate how the plan quality varied with the number of beams used. Plans were also generated with different number of beams and segments for other patient cases. This allowed for an evaluation of how to minimize the number of required segments in the converted IMRT plans without compromising the agreement between them and the original TomoTherapy plans.

RESULTS

The plans made in SharePlan were as good as or better than plans from our clinical system, but they were not as good as the original TomoTherapy plans. This was true for both the head-and-neck and the prostate cases, although the differences between the plans for the latter were small. The evaluation of the head-and-neck cases also showed that the plans generated in SharePlan were improved when more beams were used. The SharePlan Pareto front came close to the front for the TomoTherapy system when a sufficient number of beams were added. The results for plans generated with varied number of beams and segments demonstrated that the number of segments could be minimized with maintained agreement between SharePlan and TomoTherapy plans when 10-19 beams were used.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed (using Pareto front evaluation) that the plans generated in Share-Plan are comparable to plans generated in other TPSs. The evaluation also showed that the plans generated in SharePlan could be improved with the use of more beams. To minimize the number of segments needed in a plan with maintained agreement between the converted IMRT plans and the original TomoTherapy plans, 10-19 beams should be used, depending on target complexity. SharePlan has proved to be useful and should thereby be a time-saving complement as a backup system for clinics with a single TomoTherapy system installed alongside conventional C-arm linacs.