Independent knowledge-based treatment planning QA to audit Pinnacle autoplanning.


Journal

Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology
ISSN: 1879-0887
Titre abrégé: Radiother Oncol
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 8407192

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
04 2019
Historique:
received: 04 05 2018
revised: 26 10 2018
accepted: 28 10 2018
pubmed: 19 11 2018
medline: 27 2 2020
entrez: 19 11 2018
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

With the advent of automatic treatment planning options like Pinnacle's Autoplanning (PAP), the challenge arises how to assess the quality of a plan that no dosimetrist did work on. The aim of this study was to assess plan quality consistency of PAP prostate cancer patients in clinical practice. 100 prostate cancer patients were included from NKI and 129 from RadboudUMC (RUMC). Per institute a previously developed [1] treatment planning QA model, based on overlap volume histograms, was trained on PAP plans to predict achievable dose metrics which were then compared to the clinical PAP plans. A threshold of 3 Gy (DVH dose parameters)/3% (DVH volume parameters) was used to detect outliers. For the outlier plans, the PAP technique was adjusted with the aim of meeting the threshold. The average difference between the prediction and the clinically achieved value was <0.5 Gy (mean dose parameters) and <1.2% (volume parameters), with standard deviation of 1.9 Gy/1.5% respectively. We found 8% (NKI)/25% (RUMC) of patients to exceed the 3 Gy/3% threshold, with deviations up to 6.7 Gy (mean dose rectum) and 6% (rectal wall V64Gy). In all cases the plans could be improved to fall within the thresholds, without compromising the other dose metrics. Independent treatment planning QA was used successfully to assess the quality of clinical PAP in a multi-institutional setting. Respectively 8% and 25% suboptimal clinical PAP plans were detected that all could be improved with replanning. Therefore we recommend the use of independent treatment plan QA in combination with PAP for prostate cancer patients.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
With the advent of automatic treatment planning options like Pinnacle's Autoplanning (PAP), the challenge arises how to assess the quality of a plan that no dosimetrist did work on. The aim of this study was to assess plan quality consistency of PAP prostate cancer patients in clinical practice.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
100 prostate cancer patients were included from NKI and 129 from RadboudUMC (RUMC). Per institute a previously developed [1] treatment planning QA model, based on overlap volume histograms, was trained on PAP plans to predict achievable dose metrics which were then compared to the clinical PAP plans. A threshold of 3 Gy (DVH dose parameters)/3% (DVH volume parameters) was used to detect outliers. For the outlier plans, the PAP technique was adjusted with the aim of meeting the threshold.
RESULTS
The average difference between the prediction and the clinically achieved value was <0.5 Gy (mean dose parameters) and <1.2% (volume parameters), with standard deviation of 1.9 Gy/1.5% respectively. We found 8% (NKI)/25% (RUMC) of patients to exceed the 3 Gy/3% threshold, with deviations up to 6.7 Gy (mean dose rectum) and 6% (rectal wall V64Gy). In all cases the plans could be improved to fall within the thresholds, without compromising the other dose metrics.
CONCLUSION
Independent treatment planning QA was used successfully to assess the quality of clinical PAP in a multi-institutional setting. Respectively 8% and 25% suboptimal clinical PAP plans were detected that all could be improved with replanning. Therefore we recommend the use of independent treatment plan QA in combination with PAP for prostate cancer patients.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30448001
pii: S0167-8140(18)33576-X
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.10.035
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

198-204

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Tomas M Janssen (TM)

Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: t.janssen@nki.nl.

Martijn Kusters (M)

Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Yibing Wang (Y)

Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Geert Wortel (G)

Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Rene Monshouwer (R)

Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Eugène Damen (E)

Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Steven F Petit (SF)

Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH