Robotic MLC-based plans: A study of plan complexity.
CyberKnife
MLC
complexity metrics
plan complexity
quality assurance
Journal
Medical physics
ISSN: 2473-4209
Titre abrégé: Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425746
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2021
Mar 2021
Historique:
revised:
10
11
2020
received:
31
08
2020
accepted:
08
12
2020
pubmed:
18
12
2020
medline:
1
5
2021
entrez:
17
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The utility of complexity metrics has been assessed for IMRT and VMAT treatment plans, but this analysis has never been performed for CyberKnife (CK) plans. The purpose of this study is to perform a complexity analysis of CK MLC plans, adapting and computing complexity indices previously defined for IMRT plans. Metrics were used to compare the complexity of plans created by two optimization systems and to study correlations between plan complexity and patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) results. Relationships between pairs of metrics were also analyzed to get insight into possible interdependencies. Two independent in-house software platforms were developed to compute six complexity metrics: modulation complexity score (MCS), edge metric (EM), plan irregularity (PI), plan modulation (PM), leaf gap (LG), and small aperture score (SAS10). MCS and PM definitions were adapted to account for CK plans characteristics. The computed metrics were used to compare the existing optimization algorithms (sequential and VOLO) in terms of plan complexity over 24 selected cases. Metrics were then computed over a large number (103) of VOLO SBRT clinical plans from different treatment sites, mainly liver, prostate, pancreas, and spine. Pearson's r was used to study relationships between each pair of metrics. Correlation between complexity indices and PSQA results expressed as gamma index passing rates (GPR) at (3%, 1 mm) and (2%, 1 mm) was finally analyzed. Correlation was regarded as weak for absolute Pearson's r values in the range 0.2-0.39, moderate 0.4-0.59, strong 0.6-0.79, and very strong 0.8-1. When compared to VOLO, sequential plans exhibited a higher complexity degree, showing lower MCS and LG values and higher EM, PM and PI values. Differences were significant for 5/6 metrics (Wilcoxon P < 0.05). The analysis of VOLO clinical plans highlighted different degrees of complexity among plans from different treatment sites, increasing from liver to prostate, pancreas, and finally, spine. Analysis of dependencies between pairs of metrics showed a very strong significant negative correlation (P < 0.01), respectively, between MCS and PM (r = -0.97), and EM and LG (-0.82). Most of the remaining pairs showed moderate to strong correlations with the exception of PI, which showed weaker correlations with the other metrics. A moderate significant correlation was observed with GPR values both at (3%, 1 mm) and (2%, 1 mm) for all metrics except PI, which showed no correlation. Modulation complexity metrics were computed for CK MLC-based plans for the first time and some metrics' definitions were adapted to CK plans peculiarities. The computed metrics proved a useful tool for comparing optimization algorithms and for characterizing CK clinical plans. Strong and very strong correlations were found between some pairs of metrics. Some significant correlations were found with PSQA GPR, indicating that some indices are promising for rationalizing and reducing PSQA workload. Our results set the basis for evaluating new optimization algorithms and TPS versions in the future, as well as for comparing the complexity of CK MLC-based plans in multicenter and multiplatform comparisons.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
942-952Informations de copyright
© 2020 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
McNiven A, Sharpe M, Purdie T. A new metric for assessing IMRT modulation complexity. Med Phys. 2010;37:505-515.
Masi L, Doro R, Favuzza V, Cipressi S, Livi L. Impact of plan parameters on the dosimetric accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy. Med Phys. 2013;40:071718.
Min Park J, Park SY, Kim H, Ho Kim J, Carlson J, Ye SJ. Modulation indices for volumetric modulated arc therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59:7315-7340.
Du W, Cho SH, Zhang X, Hoffman KE, Kudchadker RJ. Quantification of beam complexity in intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment plans. Med Phys. 2014;41:021716.
Ezzell GA, Burmeister JW, Dogan N, et al. IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. Med Phys. 2009;36:5359-5373.
Miften M, Olch A, Mihailidis D, et al. Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement-based verification QA: recommendations of AAPM Task Group No. 218. Med Phys. 2018;45:e53-e83.
Chiavassa S, Bessieres I, Edouard M, Mathot M, Moignier A. Complexity metrics for IMRT and VMAT plans: a review of current literature and applications. Br J Radiol. 2019;92:20190270.
Antoine M, Ralite F, Soustiel C, et al. Use of metrics to quantify IMRT and VMAT treatment plan complexity: a systematic review and perspectives. Phys Medica. 2019;64:98-108.
Younge KC, Matuszak MM, Moran JM, McShan DL, Fraass BA, Roberts DA. Penalization of aperture complexity in inversely planned volumetric modulated arc therapy. Med Phys. 2012;39:7160-7170.
Li R, Xing L. An adaptive planning strategy for station parameter optimized radiation therapy (SPORT): segmentally boosted VMAT. Med Phys. 2013;40:050701.
Hernandez V, Saez J, Pasler M, Jurado-Bruggeman D, Jornet N. Comparison of complexity metrics for multi-institutional evaluations of treatment plans in radiotherapy. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2018;5:37-43.
Jurado-Bruggeman D, Hernández V, Sáez J, et al. Multi-centre audit of VMAT planning and pre-treatment verification. Radiother Oncol. 2017;124:302-310.
Russo S, Esposito M, Hernandez V, et al. Does deep inspiration breath hold reduce plan complexity? Multicentric experience of left breast cancer radiotherapy with volumetric modulated arc therapy. Phys Medica. 2019;59:79-85.
Kilby W, Dooley JR, Kuduvalli G, Sayeh S, Maurer CR. The CyberKnife® robotic radiosurgery system in 2010. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2010;9:433-452.
Asmerom G, Bourne D, Chappelow J, et al. The design and physical characterization of a multileaf collimator for robotic radiosurgery. Biomed Phys Eng Express. 2016;2:017003.
Masi L, Zani M, Doro R, et al. CyberKnife MLC-based treatment planning for abdominal and pelvic SBRT: analysis of multiple dosimetric parameters, overall scoring index and clinical scoring. Phys Medica. 2018;56:25-33.
Jang SY, Lalonde R, Ozhasoglu C, Burton S, Heron D, Huq MS. Dosimetric comparison between cone/Iris-based and InCise MLC-based CyberKnife plans for single and multiple brain metastases. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016;17:184-199.
Schmitt D, El Shafie R, Klüter S, et al. Treatment planning for MLC based robotic radiosurgery for brain metastases: plan comparison with circular fields and suggestions for planning strategies. Curr Dir Biomed Eng. 2017;3:151-154.
Calusi S, Doro R, Di Cataldo V, et al. Performance assessment of a new optimization system for robotic SBRT MLC-based plans. Phys Medica. 2020;71:31-38.
Zeverino M, Marguet M, Zulliger C, et al. Novel inverse planning optimization algorithm for robotic radiosurgery: first clinical implementation and dosimetric evaluation. Phys Medica. 2019;64:230-237.
Schlaefer A, Schweikard A. Stepwise multi-criteria optimization for robotic radiosurgery. Med Phys. 2008;35:2094-2103.
See supplementary materials at https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.14667
Crowe SB, Kairn T, Middlebrook N, et al. Examination of the properties of IMRT and VMAT beams and evaluation against pre-treatment quality assurance results. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60:2587-2601.
Nauta M, Villarreal-Barajas JE, Tambasco M. Fractal analysis for assessing the level of modulation of IMRT fields. Med Phys. 2011;38:5385-5393.
Zygmanski P, Kung JH. Method of identifying dynamic multileaf collimator irradiation that is highly sensitive to a systematic MLC calibration error. Med Phys. 2001;28:2220-2226.
Crowe SB, Kairn T, Kenny J, et al. Treatment plan complexity metrics for predicting IMRT pre-treatment quality assurance results. Austr Phys Eng Sci Med. 2014;37:475-482.
Chen SY, Feng Z, Yi X. A general introduction to adjustment for multiple comparisons. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9:1725-1729.
Blanck O, Masi L, Chan MKH, et al. High resolution ion chamber array delivery quality assurance for robotic radiosurgery: commissioning and validation. Phys Medica. 2016;32:838-846.
Zani M, Calusi S, Doro R, et al. 11. Sensitivity of patient specific quality assurance to simulated delivery errors for CyberKnife MLC treatments and effects on DVH. Phys Medica. 2018;56:67-68.
Masi L, Doro R, Blanck O, et al. EP-1483: pre-treatment QA of MLC plans on a CyberKnife M6 using a liquid ion chamber array. Radiother Oncol. 2017;123:S792-S793.
Hernandez V, Hansen CR, Widesott L, et al. What is plan quality in radiotherapy? The importance of evaluating dose metrics, complexity, and robustness of treatment plans. Radiother Oncol. 2020;153:26-33.
van de Water S, Valli L, Aluwini S, Lanconelli N, Heijmen B, Hoogeman M. Intrafraction prostate translations and rotations during hypofractionated robotic radiation surgery: dosimetric impact of correction strategies and margins. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;88:1154-1160.
Kairn T, Crowe SB, Kenny J, Knight RT, Trapp JV. Predicting the likelihood of QA failure using treatment plan accuracy metrics. J Phys Conf Ser. 2014;489:012051.
McGarry CK, Agnew CE, Hussein M, et al. The role of complexity metrics in a multi-institutional dosimetry audit of VMAT. Br J Radiol. 2016;89:20150445.
Park JM, Park SY, Kim H. Modulation index for VMAT considering both mechanical and dose calculation uncertainties. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60:7101-7125.
Valdes G, Scheuermann R, Hung CY, Olszanski A, Bellerive M, Solberg TD. A mathematical framework for virtual IMRT QA using machine learning. Med Phys. 2016;43:4323-4334.
Valdes G, Chan MF, Lim SB, Scheuermann R, Deasy JO, Solberg TD. IMRT QA using machine learning: a multi-institutional validation. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017;18:279-284.
Li J, Wang LE, Zhang X, et al. Machine learning for patient-specific quality assurance of VMAT: prediction and classification accuracy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019;105:893-902.
Glenn MC, Hernandez V, Saez J, et al. Treatment plan complexity does not predict IROC Houston anthropomorphic head and neck phantom performance. Phys Med Biol. 2018;63:205015.