Dosimetric evaluation of different planning strategies for hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation technique

Purpose.The dose hotspot areas in hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (WBI) greatly increase the risk of acute skin toxicity because of the anatomical peculiarities of the breast. In this study, we presented several novel planning strategies that integrate multiple sub-planning target volumes (sub-PTVs), field secondary placement, and RapidPlan models for right-sided hypofractionated WBI.Methods.A total of 35 cases of WBI with a dose of 42.5 Gy for PTVs using tangential intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) were selected. Both PTVs were planned for simultaneous treatment using the original manual multiple sub-PTV plan (OMMP) and the original manual single-PTV plan (OMSP). The manual field secondary placement multiple sub-PTV plan (m-FSMP) with multiple objects on the original PTV and the manual field secondary placement single-objective plan (m-FSSP) were initially planned, which were distribution-based of V105 (volume receiving 105% of the prescription dose). In addition, two RapidPlan-based plans were developed, including the RapidPlan-based multiple sub-PTVs plan (r-FSMP) and the RapidPlan-based single-PTV plan (r-FSSP). Dosimetric parameters of the plans were compared, and V105 was evaluated using multivariate analysis to determine how it was related to the volume of PTV and the interval of lateral beam angles (ILBA).Results.The lowest mean V105 (5.64 ± 6.5%) of PTV was observed in m-FSMP compared to other manual plans. Upon validation, r-FSSP demonstrated superior dosimetric quality for OAR compared to the two other manual planning methods, except for V5(the volume of ipsilateral lung receiving 5 Gy) of the ipsilateral lung. While r-FSMP showed no significant difference (p = 0.06) compared to r-FSSP, it achieved the lowest V105 value (4.3 ± 4.5%), albeit with a slight increase in the dose to some OARs. Multivariate GEE linear regression showed that V105 is significantly correlated with target volume and ILBA.Conclusions.m-FSMP and r-FSMP can substantially enhance the homogeneity index (HI) and reduce V105, thereby minimizing the risk of acute skin toxicities, even though there may be a slight dose compromise for certain OARs.

Minimum library size determination for RapidPlan knowledge based planning system using multicriteria optimization

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine the number of trade-off explored (TO) library plans required for building a RapidPlan (RP) library that would generate the optimal clinical treatment plan.

METHOD

We developed two RP models, one each for the two clinical sites, head neck (HN) and cervix. The models were created using 100 plans and were validated using 70 plans (VP) for each site respectively. Each of the two libraries comprising 100 TO plans were divided into five different subsets of library plans comprising of 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 plans, leading to five different RP model for each site. For every validation patient, a TO plan (TO_VP) was created. For every patient, five RP-plans were automatically generated using RP models. The dosimetric parameters of the six plans (TO_VP + five RP-plans) were compared using Pearson correlation and Greenhouse-Geisser analysis.

RESULTS

PTV D95% in six competing plans varied between 97.6±0.7% and 98.1±0.6% in HN cases and 98.8±0.3% and 99.0±0.4% in cervix cases. Overall, for both sites the mean variations in OAR doses or volumes were within 50cGy, 0.5% and 0.2cc between library plans, and if TO_VP was included the variations deteriorated to 180 cGy, 0.4% and 15cc. All OARs in both sites, except D0.1 ccspine, showed a statistically insignificant variation between all plans.

CONCLUSION

Dosimetric variation among various output plans generated from five RapidPlan libraries is minimal and clinically insignificant. The optimal output plan can be derived from the least weighted library consisting of 20 plans.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This article shows that, when the constituent plans are subjected to trade-off exploration, the number of constituent plans for a knowledge-based planning module is not relevant in terms of its dosimetric output.

Comparative analysis of two dose-volume histogram prediction tools for treatment planning in volumetric-modulated arc therapy: A multi-planner study

The increase in high-precision radiation therapy, particularly volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), has increased patient numbers and expanded treatment sites. However, a significant challenge in VMAT treatment planning is the inconsistent plan quality among different planners and facilities. This study explored the use of dose-volume histogram (DVH) prediction tools to address these disparities, specifically focusing on RapidPlan (Varian Medical Systems) and PlanIQ (Sun Nuclear). RapidPlan predicts achievable DVHs and automatically generates optimization objectives. While it has demonstrated organ-at-risk (OAR) dose reduction benefits, the quality of the plan used to build its model significantly affects its predictions. On the other hand, PlanIQ offers ease of use and does not require prior model-building. Five planners participated in this study, each creating two treatment plans: one referencing RapidPlan and the other using PlanIQ. The planners had the freedom to adjust parameters while referencing the DVH predictions. The plans were evaluated using "Plan Quality Metric" (PQM) scores to assess the planning target volume excluding the rectum and OARs. The results revealed that RapidPlan-referenced plans often outperformed PlanIQ-based plans, with less interplanner variability. PlanIQ played a pivotal role in the construction of the RapidPlan model. This study is the first to compare plans generated by multiple planners using both tools. This study provides insights into optimizing treatment planning by considering the characteristics of both RapidPlan and PlanIQ.

Dosimetry and efficiency comparison of knowledge-based and manual planning using volumetric modulated arc therapy for craniospinal irradiation

BACKGROUND

Craniospinal irradiation (CSI) poses a challenge to treatment planning due to the large target, field junction, and multiple organs at risk (OARs) involved. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of knowledge-based planning (KBP) in CSI by comparing original manual plans (MP), KBP RapidPlan initial plans (RPI), and KBP RapidPlan final plans (RPF), which received further re-optimization to meet the dose constraints.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Dose distributions in the target were evaluated in terms of coverage, mean dose, conformity index (CI), and homogeneity index (HI). The dosimetric results of OARs, planning time, and monitor unit (MU) were evaluated.

RESULTS

All MP and RPF plans met the plan goals, and 89.36% of RPI plans met the plan goals. The Wilcoxon tests showed comparable target coverage, CI, and HI for the MP and RPF groups; however, worst plan quality was demonstrated in the RPI plans than in MP and RPF. For the OARs, RPF and RPI groups had better dosimetric results than the MP group (P < 0.05 for optic nerves, eyes, parotid glands, and heart). The planning time was significantly reduced by the KBP from an average of 677.80 min in MP to 227.66 min (P < 0.05) and 307.76 min (P < 0.05) in RPI, and RPF, respectively. MU was not significantly different between these three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The KBP can significantly reduce planning time in CSI. Manual re-optimization after the initial KBP is recommended to enhance the plan quality.

Knowledge-based model building for treatment planning for prostate cancer using commercial treatment planning quality assurance software tools

This study devised a method to efficiently launch the RapidPlan model for volumetric-modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer in small- and medium-sized facilities using high-quality treatment plans with the PlanIQ software as a reference. Treatment plans were generated for 30 patients with prostate cancer to construct the RapidPlan model using PlanIQ as a reference. In the context of PlanIQ-referenced treatment planning, treatment plans were developed, such that the feasibility dose-volume histogram of each organ-at-risk fell within F ≤ 0.1. For validation of the RapidPlan model, treatment plans were formulated for 20 patients using both RapidPlan and PlanIQ, and the differences were evaluated. The results of RapidPlan model validity assessment revealed that the RapidPlan-produced treatment plans exhibited higher quality in 11 of 20 patients. No significant differences were found between the treatment plans. In conclusion, high-quality treatment plans formulated using PlanIQ as reference facilitated efficient implementation of RapidPlan modeling.

Improving knowledge-based treatment planning for lung cancer radiotherapy with automatic multi-criteria optimized training plans

BACKGROUND

Knowledge-based planning (KBP) is a method for automated radiotherapy treatment planning where appropriate optimization objectives for new patients are predicted based on a library of training plans. KBP can save time and improve organ at-risk sparing and inter-patient consistency compared to manual planning, but its performance depends on the quality of the training plans. We used another system for automated planning, which generates multi-criteria optimized (MCO) plans based on a wish list, to create training plans for the KBP model, to allow seamless integration of knowledge from a new system into clinical routine. Model performance was compared for KBP models trained with manually created and automatic MCO treatment plans.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two RapidPlan models with the same 30 locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients included were created, one containing manually created clinical plans (RP_CLIN) and one containing fully automatic multi-criteria optimized plans (RP_MCO). For 15 validation patients, model performance was compared in terms of dose-volume parameters and normal tissue complication probabilities, and an oncologist performed a blind comparison of the clinical (CLIN), RP_CLIN, and RP_MCO plans.

RESULTS

The heart and esophagus doses were lower for RP_MCO compared to RP_CLIN, resulting in an average reduction in the risk of 2-year mortality by 0.9 percentage points and the risk of acute esophageal toxicity by 1.6 percentage points with RP_MCO. The oncologist preferred the RP_MCO plan for 8 patients and the CLIN plan for 7 patients, while the RP_CLIN plan was not preferred for any patients.

CONCLUSION

RP_MCO improved OAR sparing compared to RP_CLIN and was selected for implementation in the clinic. Training a KBP model with clinical plans may lead to suboptimal output plans, and making an extra effort to optimize the library plans in the KBP model creation phase can improve the plan quality for many future patients.

Standardization of knowledge-based volumetric modulated arc therapy planning with a multi-institution model (broad model) to improve prostate cancer treatment quality

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether knowledge-based volumetric modulated arc therapy plans for prostate cancer with a multi-institution model (broad model) are clinically useful and effective as a standardization method.

METHODS

A knowledge-based planning (KBP) model was trained with 561 prostate VMAT plans from five institutions with different contouring and planning policies. Five clinical plans at each institution were reoptimized with the broad and single institution model, and the dosimetric parameters and relationship between Dmean and the overlapping volume (rectum or bladder and target) were compared.

RESULTS

The differences between the broad and single institution models in the dosimetric parameters for V50, V80, V90, and Dmean were: rectum; 9.5% ± 10.3%, 3.3% ± 1.5%, 1.7% ± 1.6%, and 3.6% ± 3.6%, (p < 0.001), bladder; 8.7% ± 12.8%, 1.5% ± 2.6%, 0.7% ± 2.4%, and 2.7% ± 4.6% (p < 0.02), respectively. The differences between the broad model and clinical plans were: rectum; 2.4% ± 4.6%, 1.7% ± 1.7%, 0.7% ± 2.4%, and 1.5% ± 2.0%, (p = 0.004, 0.015, 0.112, and 0.009) bladder; 2.9% ± 5.8%, 1.6% ± 1.9%, 0.9% ± 1.7%, and 1.1% ± 4.8%, (p < 0.018), respectively. Positive values indicate that the broad model has a lower value. Strong correlations were observed (p < 0.001) in the relationship between Dmean and the rectal and bladder volume overlapping with the target in the broad model (R = 0.815 and 0.891, respectively). The broad model had the smallest R2 of the three plans.

CONCLUSIONS

KBP with the broad model is clinically effective and applicable as a standardization method at multiple institutions.

Evaluating Pareto optimal tradeoffs for hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiotherapy with knowledge-based multicriteria optimization

The goal of this study is to investigate the Pareto optimal tradeoffs between target coverage and hippocampal sparing using knowledge-based multicriteria optimization (MCO). Ten prior clinical cases were selected that were treated with hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiotherapy (HA-WBRT) using VMAT. A new, balanced plan was generated for each case using an in-house RapidPlan model in the Eclipse V16.1 treatment planning system. The MCO decision support tool was used to create 4 Pareto optimal plans. The Pareto optimal plans were created using PTV Dmin and hippocampus Dmax as tradeoff criteria. The tradeoff plans were generated for each patient by adjusting PTV Dmin from the value achieved by the corresponding balanced plan in fixed intervals as follows: -4 Gy, -2 Gy, +2 Gy, and +4 Gy. All plans were normalized so that 95% of the PTV was covered by the prescription dose. A 1-way ANOVA, with Geisser-Greenhouse correction, was used for statistical analysis. When evaluating the achieved PTV Dmin and D98%, the results showed the dose to the hippocampus decreased as coverage lowered and in comparison, D98% was higher when the PTV coverage was increased. When comparing multiple tradeoffs, the p-value for PTV D98% was 0.0026, and the p-values for PTV D2%, PTV Dmin, Hippocampus Dmax, Dmin, and Dmean were all less than 0.0001, indicating that the tradeoff plans achieved statistically significant differences. The results also showed that Pareto optimal plans failed to reduce hippocampal dose beyond a certain point, indicating more limited achievability of the MCO-navigated plans than the interface suggested. This study presents valuable data for planning results for HA-WBRT using MCO. MCO has shown to be mostly effective in adjusting the tradeoff between PTV coverage and hippocampal dose.

The effect of integrating knowledge-based planning with multicriteria optimization in treatment planning for prostate SBRT

Knowledge-based planning (KBP) and multicriteria optimization (MCO) are two powerful tools to assist treatment planners in achieving optimal target coverage and organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing. The purpose of this work is to investigate if integrating MCO with conventional KBP can further improve treatment plan quality for prostate cancer stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). A two-phase study was designed to investigate the impact of MCO and KBP in prostate SBRT treatment planning. The first phase involved the creation of a KBP model based on thirty clinical SBRT plans, generated by manual optimization (KBP_M). A ten-patient validation cohort was used to compare manual, MCO, and KBP_M optimization techniques. The next phase involved replanning the original model cohort with additional tradeoff optimization via MCO to create a second model, KBP_MCO. Plans were then generated using linear integration (KBP_M+MCO), non-linear integration (KBP_MCO), and a combination of integration methods (KBP_MCO+MCO). All plans were analyzed for planning target volume (PTV) coverage, OAR constraints, and plan quality metrics. Comparisons were generated to evaluate plan and model quality. Phase 1 highlighted the necessity of KBP and MCO in treatment planning, as both optimization methods improved plan quality metrics (Conformity and Heterogeneity Indices) and reduced mean rectal dose by 2 Gy, as compared to manual planning. Integrating MCO with KBP did not further improve plan quality, as little significance was seen over KBP or MCO alone. Principal component score (PCS) fitting showed KBP_MCO improved bladder and rectum estimated and modeled dose correlation by 5% and 22%, respectively; however, model improvements did not significantly impact plan quality. KBP and MCO have shown to reduce OAR dose while maintaining desired PTV coverage in this study. Further integration of KBP and MCO did not show marked improvements in treatment plan quality while requiring increased time in model generation and optimization time.

Feasibility and dosimetric evaluation of single- and multi-isocentre stereotactic body radiation therapy for multiple liver metastases

Objectives

Single-isocentre volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) improves treatment efficiency and patient compliance for patients with multiple liver metastases (MLM). However, the potential increase in dose spillage to normal liver tissue using a single-isocentre technique has not yet been studied. We comprehensively evaluated the quality of single- and multi-isocentre VMAT-SBRT for MLM and propose a RapidPlan-based automatic planning (AP) approach for MLM SBRT.

Methods

A total of 30 patients with MLM (two or three lesions) were selected for this retrospective study. We manually replanned all patients treated with MLM SBRT by using the single-isocentre (MUS) and multi-isocentre (MUM) techniques. Then, we randomly selected 20 MUS and MUM plans for training to generate the single-isocentre RapidPlan model (RPS) and the multi-isocentre RapidPlan model (RPM). Finally, we used data from the remaining 10 patients to validate RPS and RPM.

Results

Compared with MUS, MUM reduced the mean dose delivered to the right kidney by 0.3 Gy. The mean liver dose (MLD) was 2.3 Gy higher for MUS compared with MUM. However, the monitor units, delivery time, and V20Gy of normal liver (liver-gross tumour volume) for MUM were significantly higher than for MUS. Based on validation, RPS and RPM slightly improved the MLD, V20Gy, normal tissue complications, and dose sparing to the right and left kidneys and spinal cord compared with manual plans (MUS vs RPS and MUM vs RPM), but RPS and RPM significantly increased monitor units and delivery time.

Conclusions

The single-isocentre VMAT-SBRT approach could be used for MLM to reduce treatment time and patient comfort at the cost of a small increase in the MLD. Compared with the manual plans, RapidPlan-based plans, especially RPS, have slightly improved quality.

Knowledge-based DVH estimation and optimization for breast VMAT plans with and without avoidance sectors

BACKGROUND

To analyze RapidPlan knowledge-based models for DVH estimation of organs at risk from breast cancer VMAT plans presenting arc sectors en-face to the breast with zero dose rate, feature imposed during the optimization phase (avoidance sectors AS).

METHODS

CT datasets of twenty left breast patients in deep-inspiration breath-hold were selected. Two VMAT plans, PartArc and AvoidArc, were manually generated with double arcs from ~ 300 to ~ 160°, with the second having an AS en-face to the breast to avoid contralateral breast and lung direct irradiation. Two RapidPlan models were generated from the two plan sets. The two models were evaluated in a closed loop to assess the model performance on plans where the AS were selected or not in the optimization.

RESULTS

The PartArc plans model estimated DVHs comparable with the original plans. The AvoidArc plans model estimated a DVH pattern with two steps for the contralateral structures when the plan does not contain the AS selected in the optimization phase. This feature produced mean doses of the contralateral breast, averaged over all patients, of 0.4 ± 0.1 Gy, 0.6 ± 0.2 Gy, and 1.1 ± 0.2 Gy for the AvoidArc plan, AvoidArc model estimation, RapidPlan generated plan, respectively. The same figures for the contralateral lung were 0.3 ± 0.1 Gy, 1.6 ± 0.6 Gy, and 1.2 ± 0.5 Gy. The reason was found in the possible incorrect information extracted from the model training plans due to the lack of knowledge about the AS. Conversely, in the case of plans with AS set in the optimization generated with the same AvoidArc model, the estimated and resulting DVHs were comparable. Whenever the AvoidArc model was used to generate DVH estimation for a plan with AS, while the optimization was made on the plan without the AS, the optimizer evidentiated the limitation of a minimum dose rate of 0.2 MU/°, resulting in an increased dose to the contralateral structures respect to the estimation.

CONCLUSIONS

The RapidPlan models for breast planning with VMAT can properly estimate organ at risk DVH. Attention has to be paid to the plan selection and usage for model training in the presence of avoidance sectors.

A comparison of in-house and shared RapidPlan models for prostate radiation therapy planning

Knowledge-based planning (KBP) can increase plan quality, consistency and efficiency. In this study, we assess the success of a using a publicly available KBP model compared with developing an in-house model for prostate cancer radiotherapy using a single, commercially available treatment planning system based on the ability of the model to achieve the centre's planning goals. Two radiation oncology centres each created a prostate cancer KBP model using the Eclipse RapidPlan software. These two models and a third publicly-available, shared model were tested at three centres in a retrospective planning study. The publicly-available model achieved lower rectum doses than the other two models. However, the planning-target-volume (PTV) doses did not meet the local planning goals and the model could not be adjusted to correct this. As a result, the plans most likely to satisfy local planning goals and requirements were created using an in-house model. For centres without an existing in-house model, a model created by another centre with similar planning goals was found to be preferred. Variations in local planning practices including contouring, treatment technique and planning goals can influence the relative performance of KBP. The value of publicly available KBP models could be enhanced through standardisation of planning goals and contouring guidelines, providing information related to the planning goals used to create the model and increased flexibility to allow local adaptation of the KBP model.

Evaluating the plan quality of a general head-and-neck knowledge-based planning model versus separate unilateral/bilateral models

The implementation of knowledge-based planning (KBP) continues to grow in radiotherapy clinics. KBP guides radiation treatment design by generating clinically acceptable plans in a timely and resource-efficient manner. The role of multiple KBP models tailored for variations within a disease site remains undefined in part because of the substantial effort and number of training cases required to create a high-quality KBP model. In this study, our aim was to explore whether site-specific KBP models lead to clinically meaningful differences in plan quality for head-and-neck (HN) patients when compared to a general model. One KBP model was created from prior volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) cases that treated unilateral HN lymph nodes while another model was created from VMAT cases that treated bilateral HN nodes. Thirty cases from each model (60 cases total) were randomly selected to create a third, general model. These models were applied to 60 HN test cases - 30 unilateral and 30 bilateral - to generate 180 VMAT plans in Eclipse. Clinically relevant dose metrics were compared between models. Paired-sample t-tests were used for statistical analysis, with the threshold for statistical significance set a priori at 0.007, taking into consideration multiple hypothesis testing to avoid type I error. For unilateral test cases, the unilateral model-generated plans had significantly lower spinal cord maximum doses (12.1 Gy vs 19.3 Gy, p < 0.001) and oral cavity mean doses (20.8 Gy vs 23.0 Gy, p < 0.001), compared with the bilateral model-generated plans. The unilateral and general models generated comparable plans for unilateral HN test cases. For bilateral test cases, the bilateral model created plans had significantly lower brainstem maximum doses (10.8 Gy vs 12.2 Gy, p < 0.001) and parotid mean doses (24.0 Gy vs 25.5 Gy, p < 0.001) when compared to the unilateral model. Right parotid mean doses were lower for bilateral model plans compared to general model plans (23.8 Gy vs 24.4 Gy). The general model created plans with significantly lower brainstem maximum doses (10.3 Gy vs 10.8 Gy) and oral cavity mean doses (35.3 Gy vs 36.7 Gy) when compared with bilateral model-generated plans. The general model outperformed the bilateral model in several dose metrics but they were not deemed clinically significant. For both case sets, the unilateral and general model created plans had higher monitor units when compared to the bilateral model, likely due to more stringent constraint settings. All other dose metrics were comparable. This study demonstrates that a balanced general HN model created using carefully curated treatment plans can produce high quality plans comparable to dedicated unilateral and bilateral models.

Dosimetric potential of knowledge-based planning model trained with HyperArc plans for brain metastases

OBJECTIVE

Dosimetric potential of knowledge-based RapidPlan planning model trained with HyperArc plans (Model-HA) for brain metastases has not been reported. We developed a Model-HA and compared its performance with that of clinical volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans.

METHODS

From 67 clinical stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) HyperArc plans for brain metastases, 47 plans were used to build and train a Model-HA. The other 20 clinical HyperArc plans were recalculated in RapidPlan system with Model-HA. The model performance was validated with the 20 plans by comparing dosimetric parameters for normal brain tissue between clinical plans and model-generated plans. The 20 clinical conventional VMAT-based SRS or stereotactic radiotherapy plans (CL-VMAT) were reoptimized with Model-HA (RP) and HyperArc system (HA), respectively. The dosimetric parameters were compared among three plans (CL-VMAT vs. RP vs. HA) in terms of planning target volume (PTV), normal brain excluding PTVs (Brain - PTV), brainstem, chiasm, and both optic nerves.

RESULTS

In model validation, the optimization performance of Model-HA was comparable to that of HyperArc system. In comparison to CL-VMAT, there were no significant differences among three plans with respect to PTV coverage (p > 0.17) and maximum dose for brainstem, chiasm, and optic nerves (p > 0.40). RP provided significantly lower V_20 Gy , V_12 Gy , and V_4 Gy for Brain - PTV than CL-VMAT (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The Model-HA has the potential to significantly reduce the normal brain dose of the original VMAT plans for brain metastases.

Training and validation of a knowledge-based dose-volume histogram predictive model in the optimisation of intensity-modulated proton and volumetric modulated arc photon plans for pleural mesothelioma patients

BACKGROUND

To investigate the performance of a narrow-scope knowledge-based RapidPlan (RP) model for optimisation of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans applied to patients with pleural mesothelioma. Second, estimate the potential benefit of IMPT versus VMAT for this class of patients.

METHODS

A cohort of 82 patients was retrospectively selected; 60 were used to "train" a dose-volume histogram predictive model; the remaining 22 provided independent validation. The performance of the RP models was benchmarked, comparing predicted versus achieved mean and near-to-maximum dose for all organs at risk (OARs) in the training set and by quantitative assessment of some dose-volume metrics in the comparison of the validation RP-based data versus the manually optimised training datasets. Treatment plans were designed for a prescription dose of 44 Gy in 22 fractions (proton doses account for a fixed relative biological effectiveness RBE = 1.1).

RESULTS

Training and validation RP-based plans resulted dosimetrically similar for both VMAT and IMPT groups, and the clinical planning aims were met for all structures. The IMPT plans outperformed the VMAT ones for all OARs for the contra-lateral and the mean and low dose regions for the ipsilateral OARs. Concerning the prediction performance of the RP models, the linear regression for the near-to-maximum dose resulted in D_achieved = 1.03D_predicted + 0.58 and D_achieved = 1.02D_predicted + 1.46 for VMAT and IMPT, respectively. For the mean dose it resulted: D_achieved = 0.99D_predicted + 0.34 and D_achieved = 1.05D_predicted + 0.27 respectively. In both cases, the linear correlation between prediction and achievement is granted with an angular coefficient deviating from unity for less than 5%. Concerning the dosimetric comparison between manual plans in the training cohort and RP-based plans in the validation cohort, no clinical differences were observed for the target volumes in both the VMAT and IMPT groups. Similar consistency was observed for the dose-volume metrics analysed for the OAR. This proves the possibility of achieving the same quality of plans with manual procedures (the training set) or with automated RP-based methods (the validation set).

CONCLUSION

Two models were trained and validated for VMAT and IMPT plans for pleural mesothelioma. The RP model performance resulted satisfactory as measured by the agreement between predicted and achieved (after full optimisation) dose-volume metrics. The IMPT plans outperformed the VMAT plans for all the OARs (with different intensities for contra- or ipsilateral structures). RP-based planning enabled the automation of part of the optimisation and the harmonisation of the dose-volume results between training and validation. The IMPT data showed a systematic significant dosimetric advantage over VMAT. In general, using an RP-based approach can simplify the optimisation workflow in these complex treatment indications without impacting the quality of plans.

A practical method to improve the performance of knowledge-based VMAT planning for endometrial and cervical cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of this work was to demonstrate a practical and effective method to improve the performance of RapidPlan (RP) model.

METHODS

203 consecutive clinical VMAT plans (P₀) for cervical and endometrial cancer were used to train an RP model (M₀). The plans were then reoptimized by M₀ to generate 203 new plans (P₁). Compared with P₀, 150 plans with a lower mean dose (MD) of bladder, rectum and PBM were selected from P₁ to configure a new RP model (M₁). A final RP model (M₂) was trained using plans in M₁ and the remaining 53 plans from P₁ (excluding OARs with worse MD) and the corresponding plans from P₀ (only including OARs with better MD). The models were validated on the mentioned 53 plans (closed-loop set) and 46 patient cohorts outside the training library (open-loop set). p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

For closed-loop validation, the difference of D_2%, D_98% and CI_95% between groups was of no statistical significance, the homogeneity index (HI) was lower in the groups of RP models (p < 0.05). The MD of all OARs decreased monotonically in the sequence of the clinical group, group M₀, M₁ and M₂, except the MD of bowel in M₁ and MD of LFH in M₂. Similarly, for open-loop validation, there was no significant difference in D_2%, D_98% and HI between groups, but CI_95% was larger in the clinical group (p < 0.05). The MD of all OARs decreased monotonically in the sequence of the clinical group, group M₀, M₁ and M₂, with the exception of bowel in M₁.

CONCLUSION

The practical method of incorporating plan data of better-sparing OARs from both the clinical VMAT plans and the re-optimized plans could further improve the performance of the RP model.

RapidPlan hippocampal sparing whole brain model version 2-how far can we reduce the dose?

Whole-brain radiotherapy has been the standard palliative treatment for patients with brain metastases due to its effectiveness, availability, and ease of administration. Recent clinical trials have shown that limiting radiation dose to the hippocampus is associated with decreased cognitive toxicity. In this study, we updated an existing Knowledge Based Planning model to further reduce dose to the hippocampus and improve other dosimetric plan quality characteristics. Forty-two clinical cases were contoured according to guidelines. A new dosimetric scorecard was created as an objective measure for plan quality. The new Hippocampal Sparing Whole Brain Version 2 (HSWBv2) model adopted a complex recursive training process and was validated with five additional cases. HSWBv2 treatment plans were generated on the Varian Halcyon^TM and TrueBeam^TM systems and compared against plans generated from the existing (HSWBv1) model released in 2016. On the Halcyon^TM platform, 42 cases were re-planned. Hippocampal D_100% from HSWBv2 and HSWBv1 models had an average dose of 5.75 Gy and 6.46 Gy, respectively (p < 0.001). HSWBv2 model also achieved a hippocampal D_mean of 7.49 Gy, vs 8.10 Gy in HSWBv1 model (p < 0.001). Hippocampal D_0.03CC from HSWBv2 model was 9.86 Gy, in contrast to 10.57 Gy in HSWBv1 (p < 0.001). For PTV_3000, D_98% and D_2% from HSWBv2 model were 28.27 Gy and 31.81 Gy, respectively, compared to 28.08 Gy (p = 0.020) and 32.66 Gy from HSWBv1 (p < 0.001). Among several other dosimetric quality improvements, there was a significant reduction in PTV_3000 V_105% from 35.35% (HSWBv1) to 6.44% (HSWBv2) (p < 0.001). On 5 additional validation cases, dosimetric improvements were also observed on TrueBeam^TM. In comparison to published data, the HSWBv2 model achieved higher quality hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiation therapy treatment plans through further reductions in hippocampal dose while improving target coverage and dose conformity/homogeneity. HSWBv2 model is shared publicly.

Effects of Mechanical Performance on Deliverability and Dose Distribution by Comparing Multi Institutions' Knowledge-based Models for Prostate Cancer in Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy

BACKGROUND/AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the mechanical performance and the effect on dose distribution and deliverability of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for prostate cancer created with the commercial knowledge-based planning (KBP) system (RapidPlan™).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three institutions, A, B, and C were enrolled in this study. Each institution established and trained a KBP model with their own cases. CT data and structures for 45 patients at institution B were utilized to validate the dose-volume parameters (D_2(%), D_95(%), and D_98(%) for target, and V_50(%), V_75(%), and V_90(%) for rectum and bladder), and the following mechanical performance parameters and gamma passing rates of each KBP model: leaf sequence variability (LSV), aperture area variability (AAV), total monitor unit (MU), modulation complexity score for VMAT (MCSv), MU/control point (CP), aperture area (AA)/CP, and MU×AA/CP.

RESULTS

Significant differences (p<0.01) in dosimetric parameters such as D₂ and D₉₈ for target and V₅₀, V₇₅, and V₉₀ for bladder were observed among the three institutions. The means and standard deviations of MCSv were 0.31±0.03, 0.29±0.02, and 0.32±0.03, and the angles of maximum and minimum MU×AA/CP were 269° and 13°, 269° and 13°, and 273° and 153° at institutions A, B, and C, respectively. The mean gamma passing rate (1%/1 mm.) was >95% for all cases in each institution. Dose distribution and mechanical performance significantly differed between the three models.

CONCLUSION

Each KBP model had different dose distributions and mechanical performance but could create an acceptable plan for deliverability regardless of mechanical performance.

Knowledge-Based Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Treatment Planning for Breast Cancer

Purpose:

To create and to validate knowledge-based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) models for breast cancer treatments without lymph node irradiation.

Materials and Methods:

One hundred VMAT-based breast plans (manual plans [MP]) were selected to create two knowledge-based VMAT models (breast left and breast right) using RapidPlan™. The plans were generated on Eclipse v15.5 (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) with 6 MV of a Novalis Tx equipped with a high-resolution multileaf collimator. The models were verified based on goodness-of-fit statistics using the coefficients of determination (R²) and Chi-square (χ²), and the goodness-of-estimation statistics through the mean square error (MSE). Geometrical and dosimetrical constraints were identified and removed from the RP models using statistical evaluation metrics and plots. For validation, 20 plans that integrate the models and 20 plans that do not were reoptimized with RP (closed and opened validation). Dosimetrical parameters of interest were used to compare MP versus RP plans for the Heart, Homolateral_Lung, Contralateral_Lung, and Contralateral_Breast. Optimization planning time and user independency were also analyzed.

Results:

The most unfavorable results of R² in both models for the organs at risk were as follows: for Contralateral_Lung 0.51 in RP right breast (RP_RB) and for Heart 0.60 in RP left breast (RP_LB). The most unfavorable results of χ² test were: for Contralateral_Breast 1.02 in RP_RB and for Heart 1.03 in RP_LB. These goodness-of-fit results show that no overfitting occurred in either of the models. There were no unfavorable results of mean square error (MSE, all < 0.05) in any of the two models. These goodness-of-estimation results show that the models have good estimation power. For closed validation, significant differences were found in RP_RB for Homolateral_Lung (all P ≤ 0.001), and in the RP_LB differences were found for the heart (all P ≤ 0.04) and for Homolateral_Lung (all P ≤ 0.022). For open validation, no statistically significant differences were obtained in either of the models. RP models had little impact on reducing optimization planning times for expert planners; nevertheless, the result showed a 30% reduction time for beginner planners. The use of RP models generates high-quality plans, without differences from the planner experience.

Conclusion:

Two RP models for breast cancer treatment using VMAT were successfully implemented. The use of RP models for breast cancer reduces the optimization planning time and improves the efficiency of the treatment planning process while ensuring high-quality plans.

Fully automated planning and delivery of hippocampal-sparing whole brain irradiation

The goal of this study is to fully automate the treatment planning and delivery process of hippocampal-sparing whole brain irradiation (HS-WBRT) by combining a RapidPlan (RP) knowledge-based planning model and HyperArc (HA) technology. Additionally, this study compares the dosimetric performance of RapidPlan-HyperArc (RP-HA) treatment plans with RP plans and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans. Ten patients previously treated with HS-WBRT using conventional VMAT were re-planned using RP-HA technique and RP model for HS-WBRT. Treatment plans were generated for 30Gy in 3Gy fractions using 6MV photon beam on a TrueBeam linear accelerator (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) equipped with high definition multileaf collimator (HDMLC). Target coverage, homogeneity index (HI), Paddick Conformity index (CI), dose to organs-at-risk (OARs) provided by the 3 planning modalities were compared, and a paired t-test was performed. Total number of monitor units (MU), effective planning time and beam-on-time time were reported and evaluated for each plan. RP-HA plans achieved on average a 4% increase in D_98% of PTV, a 26% improvement in HI, a 2.3% increase in CI, when compared to RP plans. Furthermore, RP-HA plans provided on average 11% decrease in D_100% of hippocampi when compared to VMAT plans. All RP-HA plans were generated in less than 30 minutes while RP plans took 40 minutes and VMAT plans required on average 9 hours to complete. Regarding beam-on-time time, it was estimated that RP-HA plans take on average 5 minutes to deliver while RP and VMAT plans require 6.5 and 10 minutes, respectively. RP-HA method provides fully automated planning and delivery for HS-WBRT. The auto-generated plans together with automated treatment delivery allow standardization of plan quality, increased efficiency and ultimately improved patient care.

A comparison of two methodologies for radiotherapy treatment plan optimization and QA for clinical trials

Background and purpose

The efficacy of clinical trials and the outcome of patient treatment are dependent on the quality assurance (QA) of radiation therapy (RT) plans. There are two widely utilized approaches that include plan optimization guidance created based on patient‐specific anatomy. This study examined these two techniques for dose‐volume histogram predictions, RT plan optimizations, and prospective QA processes, namely the knowledge‐based planning (KBP) technique and another first principle (FP) technique.

Methods

This analysis included 60, 44, and 10 RT plans from three Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) multi‐institutional trials: RTOG 0631 (Spine SRS), RTOG 1308 (NSCLC), and RTOG 0522 (H&N), respectively. Both approaches were compared in terms of dose prediction and plan optimization. The dose predictions were also compared to the original plan submitted to the trials for the QA procedure.

Results

For the RTOG 0631 (Spine SRS) and RTOG 0522 (H&N) plans, the dose predictions from both techniques have correlation coefficients of >0.9. The RT plans that were re‐optimized based on the predictions from both techniques showed similar quality, with no statistically significant differences in target coverage or organ‐at‐risk sparing. The predictions of mean lung and heart doses from both methods for RTOG1308 patients, on the other hand, have a discrepancy of up to 14 Gy.

Conclusions

Both methods are valuable tools for optimization guidance of RT plans for Spine SRS and Head and Neck cases, as well as for QA purposes. On the other hand, the findings suggest that KBP may be more feasible in the case of inoperable lung cancer patients who are treated with IMRT plans that have spatially unevenly distributed beam angles.

An updating approach for knowledge-based planning models to improve plan quality and variability in volumetric-modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the dose-volume parameters and regression scatter plots of the iteratively improved RapidPlan (RP) models, specific knowledge-based planning (KBP) models, in volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for prostate cancer over three periods.

METHODS

A RP1 model was created from 47 clinical intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)/VMAT plans. A RP2 model was created to exceed dosimetric goals which set as the mean values +1SD of the dose-volume parameters of RP1 (50 consecutive new clinical VMAT plans). A RP3 model was created with more strict dose constraints for organs at risks (OARs) than RP1 and RP2 models (50 consecutive anew clinical VMAT plans). Each RP model was validated against 30 validation plans (RP1, RP2, and RP3) that were not used for model configuration, and the dose-volume parameters were compared. The Cook's distances of regression scatterplots of each model were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Significant differences (p < 0.05) between RP1 and RP2 were found in D_mean (101.5% vs. 101.9%), homogeneity index (3.90 vs. 4.44), 95% isodose conformity index (1.22 vs. 1.20) for the target, V_40Gy (47.3% vs. 45.7%), V_60Gy (27.9% vs. 27.1%), V_70Gy (16.4% vs. 15.2%), and V_78Gy (0.4% vs. 0.2%) for the rectal wall, and V_40Gy (43.8% vs. 41.8%) and V_70Gy (21.3% vs. 20.5%) for the bladder wall, whereas only V_70Gy (15.2% vs. 15.8%) of the rectal wall differed significantly between RP2 and RP3. The proportions of cases with a Cook's distance of <1.0 (RP1, RP2, and RP3 models) were 55%, 78%, and 84% for the rectal wall, and 77%, 68%, and 76% for the bladder wall, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The iteratively improved RP models, reflecting the clear dosimetric goals based on the RP feedback (dose-volume parameters) and more strict dose constraints for the OARs, generated superior dose-volume parameters and the regression scatterplots in the model converged. This approach could be used to standardize the inverse planning strategies.

Knowledge-based intensity-modulated proton planning for gastroesophageal carcinoma

PURPOSE

To investigate the performance of a narrow-scope knowledge-based RapidPlan (RP) model, for optimisation of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans applied to patients with locally advanced carcinoma in the gastroesophageal junction.

METHODS

A cohort of 60 patients was retrospectively selected; 45 were used to 'train' a dose-volume histogram predictive model; the remaining 15 provided independent validation. The performance of the RP model was benchmarked against manual optimisation. Quantitative assessment was based on several dose-volume metrics.

RESULTS

Manual and RP-optimised IMPT plans resulted dosimetrically similar, and the planning dose-volume objectives were met for all structures. Concerning the validation set, the comparison of the manual vs RP-based plans, respectively, showed for the target (PTV): the homogeneity index was 6.3 ± 2.2 vs 5.9 ± 1.2, and V98% was 89.3 ± 2.9 vs 91.4 ± 2.2% (this was 97.2 ± 1.9 vs 98.8 ± 1.1 for the CTV). Regarding the organs at risk, no significant differences were reported for the combined lungs, the whole heart, the left anterior descending artery, the kidneys, the spleen and the spinal canal. The D_0.1 cm3 for the left ventricle resulted in 40.3 ± 3.4 vs 39.7 ± 4.3 Gy(RBE). The mean dose to the liver was 3.4 ± 1.3 vs 3.6 ± 1.5 Gy(RBE).

CONCLUSION

A narrow-scope knowledge-based RP model was trained and validated for IMPT delivery in locally advanced cancer of the gastroesophageal junction. The results demonstrate that RP can create models for effective IMPT. Furthermore, the equivalence between manual interactive and unattended RP-based optimisation could be displayed. The data also showed a high correlation between predicted and achieved doses in support of the valuable predictive power of the RP method.

Rolling out RapidPlan: What we've learnt

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.

Characterization of knowledge-based volumetric modulated arc therapy plans created by three different institutions' models for prostate cancer

Background

The aim of this study was to clarify factors predicting the performance of knowledge-based planning (KBP) models in volume modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer in terms of sparing the organ at risk (OAR).

Materials and methods

In three institutions, each KBP model was trained by more than 20 library plans (LP) per model. To validate the characterization of each KBP model, 45 validation plans (VP) were calculated by the KBP system. The ratios of overlap between the OAR volume and the planning target volume (PTV) to the whole organ volume (V_overlap/V_whole) were analyzed for each LP and VP. Regression lines between dose-volume parameters (V₉₀, V₇₅, and V₅₀) and V_overlap/V_whole were evaluated. The mean OAR dose, V₉₀, V₇₅, and V₅₀ of LP did not necessarily match those of VP.

Results

In both the rectum and bladder, the dose-volume parameters for VP were strongly correlated with V_overlap/V_whole at institutes A, B, and C (R > 0.74, 0.85, and 0.56, respectively). Except in the rectum at institute B, the slopes of the regression lines for LP corresponded to those for VP. For dose-volume parameters for the rectum, the ratios of slopes of the regression lines in VP to those in LP ranged 0.51-1.26. In the bladder, most ratios were less than 1.0 (mean: 0.77).

Conclusion

For each OAR, each model made distinct dosimetric characterizations in terms of V_overlap/V_whole. The relationship between dose-volume parameters and V_overlap/V_whole of OARs in LP predicts the KBP models' performance sparing OARs.

Parotid sparing in RapidPlan Oropharynx models: To split or not to split

INTRODUCTION

Differences in knowledge and experience, patient anatomy and tumour location and manipulation of inverse planning objectives and priorities will lead to a variability in the quality of radiation planning. The aim of this study was to investigate whether parotid glands should be treated as separate or combined structures when using knowledge-based planning (KBP) to create oropharyngeal plans, based on the dose they receive.

METHOD

Two separate RapidPlan (RP) models were created using the same 70 radical oropharyngeal patients. The 'separated model' divided the parotids into ipsilateral and contralateral structures. The 'combined model' did not separate the parotids. The models were independently validated using 20 patients not included in the models. The same dose constraints and priorities were applied to planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OARs) for all plans. An auto-generated line objective and priority was applied in both models, with parotid mean dose and V50 doses evaluated and compared.

RESULTS

Plans optimised using the combined model resulted in lower ipsilateral mean doses and lower V50 doses in 80% and 75% of cases, respectively. Fifty-five per cent of plans produced lower mean doses for the contralateral parotid when optimised using the combined model, while lower V50 doses were evenly split between the models.

CONCLUSION

Combining the data for both parotids into one RP model resulted in better ipsilateral parotid sparing. Results also suggest that a combined parotid model will spare dose to the contralateral parotid; however, further investigation is required to confirm these results.

Can the Student Outperform the Master? A Plan Comparison Between Pinnacle Auto-Planning and Eclipse knowledge-Based RapidPlan Following a Prostate-Bed Plan Competition

Purpose:

Pinnacle Auto-Planning and Eclipse RapidPlan are 2 major commercial automated planning engines that are fundamentally different: Auto-Planning mimics real planners in the iterative optimization, while RapidPlan generates static dose objectives from estimations predicted based on a prior knowledge base. This study objectively compared their performances on intensity-modulated radiotherapy planning for prostate fossa and lymphatics adopting the plan quality metric used in the 2011 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists Plan Challenge.

Methods:

All plans used an identical intensity-modulated radiotherapy beam setup and a simultaneous integrated boost prescription (68 Gy/56 Gy to prostate fossa/lymphatics). Auto-Planning was used to retrospectively plan on 20 patients, which were subsequently employed as the library to build an RapidPlan model. To compare the 2 engines’ performances, a test set including 10 patients and the Plan Challenge patient was planned by both Auto-Planning (master) and RapidPlan (student) without manual intervention except for a common dose normalization and evaluated using the plan quality metric that included 14 quantitative submetrics ranging over target coverage, spillage, and organ at risk doses. Plan quality metric scores were compared between the Auto-Planning and RapidPlan plans using the Mann-Whitney U test.

Results:

There was no significant difference between the overall performance of the 2 engines on the 11 test cases (P = .509). Among the 14 submetrics, Auto-Planning and RapidPlan showed no significant difference on most submetrics except for 2. On the Plan Challenge case, Auto-Planning scored 129.9 and RapidPlan scored 130.3 out of 150, as compared with the average score of 116.9 ± 16.4 (range: 58.2-142.5) among the 125 Plan Challenge participants.

Conclusion:

Using an innovative study design, an objective comparison has been conducted between 2 major commercial automated inverse planning engines. The 2 engines performed comparably with each other and both yielded plans at par with average human planners. Using a constant-performing planner (Auto-Planning) to train and to compare, RapidPlan was found to yield plans no better than but as good as its library plans.

RapidPlan development of VMAT plans for cervical cancer patients in low- and middle-income countries

Cervical cancer has a high incidence and mortality rate in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) largely due to limited resources and insufficient staffing. Knowledge-based planning (KBP) could alleviate understaffing issues by streamlining the radiotherapy treatment planning process. Varian's KBP system (RapidPlan) was used to develop a model capable of producing volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for cervical cancer patients. Plan data from 46 patients previously treated at MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) were used to create and train the model which was then applied to 32 patients excluded from the training process. Dose volume histogram (DVH) values for the planning target volume (PTV_High), bladder, rectum, and bowel were evaluated for the validation plans and found to have satisfied the required PTV coverage and organ-at-risk (OAR) dose constraints. The average value for PTV_High D_95.0% was 48.0 Gy (sd = 3.0 Gy) for existing clinical plans and 48.4 Gy (sd = 2.6 Gy) for the validation plans. The mean dose for the bladder, rectum, and bowel was 39.8 Gy (sd = 3.9 Gy), 41.6 Gy (sd = 5.2 Gy), and 21.6 Gy (sd = 5.0 Gy) for existing clinical plans and 38.9 Gy (sd = 4.0 Gy), 40.3 Gy (sd = 4.8 Gy), and 21.5 Gy (sd = 4.6 Gy) for validation plans, respectively. A TOST test showed that the p values for the PTV_High D_95.0% (p < 0.001), rectum V_30Gy (p = 0.039), and mean dose to the bladder (p = 0.0014), rectum (p = 0.025), and bowel (p = 0.006) were statistically significant within a 5% equivalence margin of the clinical value thereby providing strong evidence of equivalence. Based on this statistical analysis, it was determined that the model was capable of generating treatable VMAT plans for cervical cancer patients.

RapidPlan knowledge based planning: iterative learning process and model ability to steer planning strategies

Purpose

To determine if the performance of a knowledge based RapidPlan (RP) planning model could be improved with an iterative learning process, i.e. if plans generated by an RP model could be used as new input to re-train the model and achieve better performance.

Methods

Clinical VMAT plans from 83 patients presenting with head and neck cancer were selected to train an RP model, CL-1. With this model, new plans on the same patients were generated, and subsequently used as input to train a novel model, CL-2. Both models were validated on a cohort of 20 patients and dosimetric results compared. Another set of 83 plans was realised on the same patients with different planning criteria, by using a simple template with no attempt to manually improve the plan quality. Those plans were employed to train another model, TP-1. The differences between the plans generated by CL-1 and TP-1 for the validation cohort of patients were compared with respect to the differences between the original plans used to build the two models.

Results

The CL-2 model presented an improvement relative to CL-1, with higher R² values and better regression plots. The mean doses to parallel organs decreased with CL-2, while D_1% to serial organs increased (but not significantly). The different models CL-1 and TP-1 were able to yield plans according to each original strategy.

Conclusion

A refined RP model allowed the generation of plans with improved quality, mostly for parallel organs at risk and, possibly, also the intrinsic model quality.

Multi-institutional evaluation of knowledge-based planning performance of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for head and neck cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate whether additional manual objectives are necessary for the RapidPlan (RP) with a single optimization. We conducted multi-institutional comparisons of plan quality for head and neck cancer (HNC) using the models created at each institute.

METHODS

The ability of RP to produce acceptable plans for dose requirements was evaluated in two types of oropharynx cancers at five institutes in Japan. Volumetric modulated arc therapy plans created without (RP plan) and with additional manual objectives (M-RP plan) were compared in terms of planning target volume (PTV), brainstem, spinal cord and parotid glands in dosimetric parameters.

RESULTS

There were no major dosimetric PTV differences between RP and M-RP plans. For the brainstem and spinal cord in the RP plans, only 40% and 30% of the plans achieved the dose requirements, while the M-RP plans with upper objective added to volume 0% at all institutes achieved them for 90% of the plans. For the L-parotid gland, there was no difference in the RP and M-RP plans (both were 40%) in achieving the acceptable criteria. For the R-parotid gland, 60% and 80% of the RP and M-RP plans achieved the constraint criteria, and in terms of the achievement rate, the RP plans were relatively high.

CONCLUSIONS

M-RP plans did not require reoptimization; only an upper objective was needed for the brainstem and spinal cord, while the parotid gland dose was reduced in both RP plans with the auto generated line objectives alone.

Can automated treatment plans gain traction in the clinic?

Recently, there has been an increased interest in the feasibility and impact of automation within the field of medical dosimetry. While there have been many commercialized solutions for automatic treatment planning, the use of an application programming interface to achieve complete plan generation for specific treatment sites is a process only recently available for certain commercial vendors. Automatic plan generation for 20 prostate patients was achieved via a stand‐alone automated planning script that accessed a knowledge‐based planning solution. Differences between the auto plans and clinically treated, baseline plans were analyzed and compared. The planning script successfully initialized a treatment plan, accessed the knowledge‐based planning model, optimized the plan, assessed for constraint compliance, and normalized the treatment plan for maximal coverage while meeting constraints. Compared to baseline plans, the auto‐generated plans showed significantly improved rectal sparing with similar coverage for targets and comparable doses to the remaining organs‐at‐risk. Utilization of a script, with its associated time saving and integrated process management, can quickly and automatically generate an acceptable clinical treatment plan for prostate cancer with either improved or similar results compared to a manually created plan.

[Impact of DVH Outliers Registered in Knowledge-based Planning on Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Treatment Planning for Prostate Cancer]

RapidPlan, a knowledge-based planning software, uses a model library containing the dose-volume histogram (DVH) of previous treatment plans, and it automatically provides optimization objectives based on a trained model to future patients for volumetric modulated arc therapy treatment planning. However, it is unknown how DVH outliers registered in models influence the resulting plans. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of DVH outliers on the resulting quality of RapidPlan knowledge-based plans generated for patients with prostate cancer. First, 123 plans for patients with prostate cancer were used to populate the initial model (model_all). Next, model_all-20 and model_all-40 were created by excluding DVH outliers of bladder optimization contours 20 and 40 patients from model_all, respectively. These models were used to create plans for a 20-patient. The plans created using model_all-40 showed reductions of D_30% and D_50% in the bladder wall dose, and the DVH shape excluding outliers were affected. However, there were no significant differences in monitor units, target doses, or bladder wall doses between each treatment plan. Thus, we have shown that removal of DVH outliers from models does not affect the quality of plans created by the model.

Effectiveness of Multi-Criteria Optimization-based Trade-Off exploration in combination with RapidPlan for head & neck radiotherapy planning

Background

A new strategy is introduced combining the use of Multi-Criteria Optimization-based Trade-Off Exploration (TO) and RapidPlan™ (RP) for the selection of optimisation parameters that improve the trade-off between sparing of organs at risk (OAR) and target coverage for head and neck radiotherapy planning. Using both approaches simultaneously; three different workflows were proposed for the optimisation process of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans. The generated plans were compared to the clinical plans and the plans that resulted using RP and TO individually.

Methods

Twenty clinical VMAT plans previously administered were selected. Five additional plans were created for each patient: a clinical plan further optimised with TO (Clin+TO); two plans generated by in-house built RP models, RP_1 with the model built with VMAT clinical plans and RP_TO with the model built with VMAT plans optimised by TO. Finally, these last two plans were additionally optimised with TO for the creation of the plans RP_1 + TO and RP_TO⁺ respectively. The TO management was standardised to maximise the sparing of the parotid glands without compromising a clinically acceptable PTV coverage. Resulting plans were inter-compared based on dose-volume parameters for OAR and PTVs, target homogeneity, conformity, and plans complexity and deliverability.

Results

The plans optimised using TO in combination with RP showed significantly improved OAR sparing while maintaining comparable target dose coverage to the clinical plans. The largest OAR sparing compared to the clinical plans was achieved by the RP_TO⁺ plans, which reported a mean parotid dose average of 15.0 ± 4.6 Gy vs 22.9 ± 5.5 Gy (left) and 17.1 ± 5.0 Gy vs 24.8 ± 5.8 Gy (right). However, at the same time, RP_TO⁺ showed a slight dose reduction for the 99% volume of the nodal PTV and an increase for the 95% (when comparing to the clinical plans 76.0 ± 1.2 vs 77.4 ± 0.6 and 80.9 ± 0.9 vs 79.7 ± 0.4) but remained within clinical acceptance. Plans optimised with RP and TO combined, showed an increase in complexity but were proven to be deliverable.

Conclusion

The use of TO combined with RP during the optimisation of VMAT plans enhanced plan quality the most. For the RP_TO⁺ plans, acceptance of a slight deterioration in nodal PTV allowed the largest reduction in OAR dose to be achieved.

Planning comparison of five automated treatment planning solutions for locally advanced head and neck cancer

Background

Automated treatment planning and/or optimization systems (ATPS) are in the process of broad clinical implementation aiming at reducing inter-planner variability, reducing the planning time allocated for the optimization process and improving plan quality. Five different ATPS used clinically were evaluated for advanced head and neck cancer (HNC).

Methods

Three radiation oncology departments compared 5 different ATPS: 1) Automatic Interactive Optimizer (AIO) in combination with RapidArc (in-house developed and Varian Medical Systems); 2) Auto-Planning (AP) (Philips Radiation Oncology Systems); 3) RapidPlan version 13.6 (RP1) with HNC model from University Hospital A (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, USA); 4) RapidPlan version 13.7 (RP2) combined with scripting for automated setup of fields with HNC model from University Hospital B; 5) Raystation multicriteria optimization algorithm version 5 (RS) (Laboratories AB, Stockholm, Sweden). Eight randomly selected HNC cases from institution A and 8 from institution B were used. PTV coverage, mean and maximum dose to the organs at risk and effective planning time were compared. Ranking was done based on 3 Gy increments for the parallel organs.

Results

All planning systems achieved the hard dose constraints for the PTVs and serial organs for all patients. Overall, AP achieved the best ranking for the parallel organs followed by RS, AIO, RP2 and RP1. The oral cavity mean dose was the lowest for RS (31.3 ± 17.6 Gy), followed by AP (33.8 ± 17.8 Gy), RP1 (34.1 ± 16.7 Gy), AIO (36.1 ± 16.8 Gy) and RP2 (36.3 ± 16.2 Gy). The submandibular glands mean dose was 33.6 ± 10.8 Gy (AP), 35.2 ± 8.4 Gy (AIO), 35.5 ± 9.3 Gy (RP2), 36.9 ± 7.6 Gy (RS) and 38.2 ± 7.0 Gy (RP1). The average effective planning working time was substantially different between the five ATPS (in minutes): < 2 ± 1 for AIO and RP2, 5 ± 1 for AP, 15 ± 2 for RP1 and 340 ± 48 for RS, respectively.

Conclusions

All ATPS were able to achieve all planning DVH constraints and the effective working time was kept bellow 20 min for each ATPS except for RS. For the parallel organs, AP performed the best, although the differences were small.

Use of a constrained hierarchical optimization dataset enhances knowledge-based planning as a quality assurance tool for prostate bed irradiation

PURPOSE

To investigate whether building a knowledge-based planning (KBP) model with prostate bed plans constructed from constrained hierarchical optimization (CHO) would result in more efficient model construction with more consistent output than a model built using plans from a traditional, trial-and-error-based optimization (TEO) technique.

METHODS

Three KBP models were constructed from plans from subsets of 58 post-prostatectomy patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy. TEO₅₄ was built from 54 TEO plans, selected to represent typical clinical variations in target and organ-at-risk sizes and shapes. CHO₃₀ and TEO₃₀ were built from the same 30 patients populated with CHO and TEO plans, respectively. The three models were each applied to a new set of 18 patient scans and dose-volume histogram estimates (DVHEs) were generated for rectal and bladder walls and compared for each patient.

RESULTS

CHO₃₀ resulted in a significantly tighter range in DVHEs (P < 0.01) for both the rectal and bladder walls compared with either of the TEO models, indicating less uncertainty in the dose estimation. Plans resulting from KBP optimization using each model were very similar.

CONCLUSION

Populating a KBP model with CHO data resulted in a high quality model. Since CHO plans can be generated automatically offline in a process that necessitates little to no user interaction, a CHO-KBP model can quickly adapt to changes in plan evaluation criteria or planning techniques without the need to wait to accrue sufficient numbers of clinical TEO plans. This may facilitate the use of KBP approaches for initial or ongoing quality assurance procedures and plan quality audits.

An interactive plan and model evolution method for knowledge-based pelvic VMAT planning

Purpose

To test if a RapidPlan DVH estimation model and its training plans can be improved interactively through a closed‐loop evolution process.

Methods and materials

Eighty‐one manual plans (P₀) that were used to configure an initial rectal RapidPlan model (M₀) were reoptimized using M₀ (closed‐loop), yielding 81 P₁ plans. The 75 improved P₁ (P₁₊) and the remaining 6 P₀ were used to configure model M₁. The 81 training plans were reoptimized again using M₁, producing 23 P₂ plans that were superior to both their P₀ and P₁ forms (P₂₊). Hence, the knowledge base of model M₂ composed of 6 P₀, 52 P₁₊, and 23 P₂₊. Models were tested dosimetrically on 30 VMAT validation cases (P_v) that were not used for training, yielding P_v(M₀), P_v(M₁), and P_v(M₂) respectively. The 30 P_v were also optimized by M_{2_new} as trained by the library of M₂ and 30 P_v(M₀).

Results

Based on comparable target dose coverage, the first closed‐loop reoptimization significantly (P < 0.01) reduced the 81 training plans’ mean dose to femoral head, urinary bladder, and small bowel by 2.65 Gy/15.63%, 2.06 Gy/8.11%, and 1.47 Gy/6.31% respectively, which were further reduced significantly (P < 0.01) in the second closed‐loop reoptimization by 0.04 Gy/0.28%, 0.18 Gy/0.77%, 0.22 Gy/1.01% respectively. However, open‐loop VMAT validations displayed more complex and intertwined plan quality changes: mean dose to urinary bladder and small bowel decreased monotonically using M₁ (by 0.34 Gy/1.47%, 0.25 Gy/1.13%) and M₂ (by 0.36 Gy/1.56%, 0.30 Gy/1.36%) than using M₀. However, mean dose to femoral head increased by 0.81 Gy/6.64% (M₁) and 0.91 Gy/7.46% (M₂) than using M₀. The overfitting problem was relieved by applying model M_{2_new}.

Conclusions

The RapidPlan model and its constituent plans can improve each other interactively through a closed‐loop evolution process. Incorporating new patients into the original training library can improve the RapidPlan model and the upcoming plans interactively.

Fully automated searching for the optimal VMAT jaw settings based on Eclipse Scripting Application Programming Interface (ESAPI) and RapidPlan knowledge-based planning

PURPOSE

Eclipse treatment planning system has not been able to optimize the jaw positions for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT). The arbitrary and planner-dependent jaw placements define the maximum field size within which multi-leaf-collimator (MLC) sequences can be optimized to modulate the beam. Considering the mechanical constraints of MLC transitional speed and range, suboptimal X jaw settings may impede the optimization or undermine the deliverability. This work searches optimal VMAT jaw settings automatically based on Eclipse Scripting Application Programming Interface (ESAPI) and RapidPlan knowledge-based planning.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Using an ESAPI script, the X jaws of rectal VMAT plans were initially set to conform the planning-target-volume (PTV), and were gradually extended toward the isocenter (PTV center) in 5-7 mm increments. Using these jaw pairs, 592 plans were automatically created for 10 patients and quantitatively evaluated using a comprehensive scoring function. A published RapidPlan model was evoked by ESAPI to generate patient-specific optimization objectives without manual intervention. All candidate plans were first stored as text files to save storage space, and only the best, worst, and conformal plans were consequently recreated for comparison.

RESULTS

Although RapidPlan estimates dose-volume histogram (DVH) based on individual anatomy, the geometry-based expected dose (GED) algorithm does not recognize different jaw settings but uses PTV-conformal jaws as default; hence, identical DVHs were observed regardless of planner-defined jaws. Therefore, ESAPI finalized dose-volume calculation and eliminated the plans with unacceptable hotspots before comparison. The plan quality varied dramatically with different jaw settings. Trade-offs among different organs-at-risk (OARs) were collectively considered by the proposed scoring method, which identified the best and worst plans correctly. The plans using conformal jaws were neither the best nor the worst of all candidates.

CONCLUSIONS

VMAT plans using optimal jaw locations can be created automatically using ESAPI and RapidPlan. Conformal jaws are not the optimal choice.

Evaluation of multiple institutions' models for knowledge-based planning of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for prostate cancer

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of a commercial knowledge-based planning system, in volumetric modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer at multiple radiation therapy departments.

Methods

In each institute, > 20 cases were assessed. For the knowledge-based planning, the estimated dose (ED) based on geometric and dosimetric information of plans was generated in the model. Lower and upper limits of estimated dose were saved as dose volume histograms for each organ at risk. To verify whether the models performed correctly, KBP was compared with manual optimization planning in two cases. The relationships between the EDs in the models and the ratio of the OAR volumes overlapping volume with PTV to the whole organ volume (V_overlap/V_whole) were investigated.

Results

There were no significant dosimetric differences in OARs and PTV between manual optimization planning and knowledge-based planning. In knowledge-based planning, the difference in the volume ratio of receiving 90% and 50% of the prescribed dose (V90 and V50) between institutes were more than 5.0% and 10.0%, respectively. The calculated doses with knowledge-based planning were between the upper and lower limits of ED or slightly under the lower limit of ED. The relationships between the lower limit of ED and V_overlap/V_whole were different among the models. In the V90 and V50 for the rectum, the maximum differences between the lower limit of ED among institutes were 8.2% and 53.5% when V_overlap/V_whole for the rectum was 10%. In the V90 and V50 for the bladder, the maximum differences of the lower limit of ED among institutes were 15.1% and 33.1% when V_overlap/V_whole for the bladder was 10%.

Conclusion

Organs’ upper and lower limits of ED in the models correlated closely with the V_overlap/V_whole. It is important to determine whether the models in KBP match a different institute’s plan design before the models can be shared.

RapidPlan head and neck model: the objectives and possible clinical benefit

Background

To evaluate a knowledge based planning model for RapidPlan (RP) generated for advanced head and neck cancer (HNC) patient treatments, as well its ability to possibly improve the clinical plan quality. The stability of the model was assessed also for a different beam geometry, different dose fractionation and different management of bilateral structures (parotids).

Methods

Dosimetric and geometric data from plans of 83 patients presenting HNC were selected for the model training. All the plans used volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT, RapidArc) to treat two targets at dose levels of 69.96 and 54.45 Gy in 33 fractions with simultaneous integrated boost. Two models were generated, the first separating the ipsi- and contra-lateral parotids, while the second associating the two parotids to a single structure for training. The optimization objectives were adjusted to the final model to better translate the institutional planning and dosimetric strategies and trade-offs. The models were validated on 20 HNC patients, comparing the RP generated plans and the clinical plans. RP generated plans were also compared between the clinical beam arrangement and a simpler geometry, as well as for a different fractionation scheme.

Results

RP improved significantly the clinical plan quality, with a reduction of 2 Gy, 5 Gy, and 10 Gy of the mean parotid, oral cavity and laryngeal doses, respectively. A simpler beam geometry was deteriorating the plan quality, but in a small amount, keeping a significant improvement relative to the clinical plan. The two models, with one or two parotid structures, showed very similar results. NTCP evaluations indicated the possibility of improving (NTCP decreasing of about 7%) the toxicity profile when using the RP solution.

Conclusions

The HNC RP model showed improved plan quality and planning stability for beam geometry and fractionation. An adequate choice of the objectives in the model is necessary for the trade-offs strategies.

Photon Optimizer (PO) prevails over Progressive Resolution Optimizer (PRO) for VMAT planning with or without knowledge-based solution

The enhanced dosimetric performance of knowledge‐based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning might be jointly contributed by the patient‐specific optimization objectives, as estimated by the RapidPlan model, and by the potentially improved Photon Optimizer (PO) algorithm than the previous Progressive Resolution Optimizer (PRO) engine. As PO is mandatory for RapidPlan estimation but optional for conventional manual planning, appreciating the two optimizers may provide practical guidelines for the algorithm selection because knowledge‐based planning may not replace the current method completely in a short run. Using a previously validated dose–volume histogram (DVH) estimation model which can produce clinically acceptable plans automatically for rectal cancer patients without interactive manual adjustment, this study reoptimized 30 historically approved plans (referred as clinical plans that were created manually with PRO) with RapidPlan solution (PO plans). Then the PRO algorithm was utilized to optimize the plans again using the same dose–volume constraints as PO plans, where the line objectives were converted as a series of point objectives automatically (PRO plans). On the basis of comparable target dose coverage, the combined applications of new objectives and PO algorithm have significantly reduced the organs‐at‐risk (OAR) exposure by 23.49–32.72% than the clinical plans. These discrepancies have been largely preserved after substituting PRO for PO, indicating the dosimetric improvements were mostly attributable to the refined objectives. Therefore, Eclipse users of earlier versions may instantly benefit from adopting the model‐generated objectives from other RapidPlan‐equipped centers, even with PRO algorithm. However, the additional contribution made by the PO relative to PRO accounted for 1.54–3.74%, suggesting PO should be selected with priority whenever available, with or without RapidPlan solution as a purchasable package. Significantly increased monitor units were associated with the model‐generated objectives but independent from the optimizers, indicating higher modulation in these plans. As a summary, PO prevails over PRO algorithm for VMAT planning with or without knowledge‐based technique.

Applying a RapidPlan model trained on a technique and orientation to another: a feasibility and dosimetric evaluation

Background

The development of a dose-volume-histogram (DVH) estimation model for knowledge-based planning is very time-consuming and it could be inefficient if it was only used for similar upcoming cases as supposed. It is clinically desirable to explore and validate other potential applications for a configured model. This study tests the hypothesis that a supine volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) model can optimize intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans of other patient setup orientations.

Methods

Based on RapidPlan, a DVH estimation model was trained using 81 supine VMAT rectal plans and validated on 10 similar cases to ensure the robustness of its designed purpose. Attempts were then made to apply the model to re-optimize the dynamic MLC-sequences of the duplicated IMRT plans from 30 historical patients (20 prone and 10 supine) that were treated with the same prescription as for the model (50.6 and 41.8 Gy to 95 % of PGTV and PTV simultaneously/22 fractions). The performance of knowledge-based re-optimization and the impact of setup orientations were evaluated dosimetrically.

Results

The VMAT model validation on similar cases showed comparable target dose distribution and significantly improved organ sparing (by 10.77 ~ 18.65 %) than the original plans. IMRT plans of either setup can be re-optimized using the supine VMAT model, which significantly reduced the dose to the bladder (by 25.88 % from 33.85 ± 2.96 to 25.09 ± 1.32 Gy for D_{50 %}; by 22.77 % from 33.99 ± 2.77 to 26.25 ± 1.22 Gy for mean dose) and femoral head (by 12.27 % from 15.65 ± 3.33 to 13.73 ± 1.43 Gy for D_{50 %}; by 10.09 % from 16.26 ± 2.74 to 14.62 ± 1.10 Gy for mean dose), all P < 0.01. Although the dose homogeneity and PGTV conformity index (CI_{_PGTV}) changed slightly (≤0.01), CI_{_PTV} of IMRT plans was significantly increased (Δ = 0.17, P < 0.01) by the manually defined target-objectives in the VMAT optimizer. The semi-automated IMRT planning increased the global maximum dose and V_{107 %} due to the missing of hot spot suppression by specific manual optimizing or fluence map editing.

Conclusions

The Varian RapidPlan model trained on a technique and orientation can be used for another. Knowledge-based planning improves organ sparing and quality consistency, yet the target-objectives defined for VMAT-optimizer should be readapted to IMRT planning, followed by manual hot spot processing.

Clinical validation and benchmarking of knowledge-based IMRT and VMAT treatment planning in pelvic anatomy

PURPOSE

The aim of this work was to determine whether a commercial knowledge-based treatment planning (KBP) module can efficiently produce IMRT and VMAT plans in the pelvic region (prostate & cervical cancer), and to assess sensitivity of plan quality to training data and model parameters.

METHODS

Initial benchmarking of KBP was performed using prostate cancer cases. Structures and dose distributions from 40 patients previously treated using a 5-field IMRT technique were used for model training. Two types of model were created: one excluded statistical outliers (as identified by RapidPlan guidelines) and the other had no exclusions. A separate model for cervix uteri cancer cases was subsequently developed using 37 clinical patients treated for cervical cancer using RapidArc™ VMAT, with no exclusions. The resulting models were then used to generate plans for ten patients from each patient group who had not been included in the modelling process. Comparisons of generated RapidPlans with the corresponding clinical plans were carried out to indicate the required modifications to the models. Model parameters were then iteratively adjusted until plan quality converged with that obtained by experienced planners without KBP.

RESULTS

Initial automated model generation settings led to poor conformity, coverage and efficiency compared to clinical plans. Therefore a number of changes to the initial KBP models were required. Before model optimisation, it was found that the PTV coverage was slightly reduced in the superior and inferior directions for RapidPlan compared with clinical plans and therefore PTV parameters were adjusted to improve coverage. OAR doses were similar for both RapidPlan and clinical plans (p>0.05). Excluding outliers had little effect on plan quality (p≫0.05). Manually fixing key optimisation objectives enabled production of clinically acceptable treatment plans without further planner intervention for 9 of 10 prostate test patients and all 10 cervix test patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The Varian RapidPlan™ system was able to produce IMRT & VMAT treatment plans in the pelvis, in a single optimisation, that had comparable sparing and comparable or better conformity than the original clinically acceptable plans. The system allows for better consistency and efficiency in the treatment planning process and has therefore been adopted clinically within our institute with over 100 patients treated.

On the pre-clinical validation of a commercial model-based optimisation engine: application to volumetric modulated arc therapy for patients with lung or prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate the performance of a model-based optimisation process for volumetric modulated arc therapy applied to advanced lung cancer and to low risk prostate carcinoma patients.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Two sets each of 27 previously treated patients, were selected to train models for the prediction of dose-volume constraints. The models were validated on the same sets of plans (closed-loop) and on further two sets each of 25 patients not used for the training (open-loop).

RESULTS

Quantitative improvements (statistically significant for the majority of the analysed dose-volume parameters) were observed between the benchmark and the test plans. In the pass-fail analysis, the rate of criteria not fulfilled was reduced in the lung patient group from 11% to 7% in the closed-loop and from 13% to 10% in the open-loop studies; in the prostate patient group it was reduced from 4% to 3% in the open-loop study.

CONCLUSIONS

Plans were optimised using a knowledge-based model to determine the dose-volume constraints. The results showed dosimetric improvements when compared to the benchmark data, particularly in the sparing of organs at risk. The data suggest that the new engine is reliable and could encourage its application to clinical practice.