Evaluation of two independent dose prediction methods to personalize the automated radiotherapy planning process for prostate cancer.
Automated treatment planning
Ideal dose distribution
Optimization
Radiotherapy
Volumetric-modulated arc therapy
Journal
Physics and imaging in radiation oncology
ISSN: 2405-6316
Titre abrégé: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101704276
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2022
Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
11
01
2021
revised:
26
01
2022
accepted:
26
01
2022
entrez:
11
2
2022
pubmed:
12
2
2022
medline:
12
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Currently, automatic approaches for radiotherapy planning are widely used, however creation of high quality treatment plans is still challenging. In this study, two independent dose prediction methods were used to personalize the initial settings for the automated planning template for optimizing prostate cancer treatment plans. This study evaluated the dose metrics of these plans comparing both methods with the current clinical automated prostate cancer treatment plans. Datasets of 20 high-risk prostate cancer treatment plans were taken from our clinical database. The prescription dose for these plans was 70 Gy given in fractions of 2.5 Gy. Plans were replanned using the current clinical automated treatment and compared with two personalized automated planning methods. The feasibility dose volume histogram (FDVH) and modified filter back projection (mFBP) methods were used to calculate independent dose predictions. Parameters for the initial objective values of the planning template were extracted from these predictions and used to personalize the optimization of the automated planning process. The current automated replanned clinical plans and the automated plans optimized with the personalized template methods fulfilled the clinical dose criteria. For both methods a reduction in the average mean dose of the rectal wall was found, from 22.5 to 20.1 Gy for the FDVH and from 22.5 to 19.6 Gy for the mFBP method. With both dose-prediction methods the initial settings of the template could be personalized. Hereby, the average dose to the rectal wall was reduced compared to the standard template method.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
Currently, automatic approaches for radiotherapy planning are widely used, however creation of high quality treatment plans is still challenging. In this study, two independent dose prediction methods were used to personalize the initial settings for the automated planning template for optimizing prostate cancer treatment plans. This study evaluated the dose metrics of these plans comparing both methods with the current clinical automated prostate cancer treatment plans.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
METHODS
Datasets of 20 high-risk prostate cancer treatment plans were taken from our clinical database. The prescription dose for these plans was 70 Gy given in fractions of 2.5 Gy. Plans were replanned using the current clinical automated treatment and compared with two personalized automated planning methods. The feasibility dose volume histogram (FDVH) and modified filter back projection (mFBP) methods were used to calculate independent dose predictions. Parameters for the initial objective values of the planning template were extracted from these predictions and used to personalize the optimization of the automated planning process.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The current automated replanned clinical plans and the automated plans optimized with the personalized template methods fulfilled the clinical dose criteria. For both methods a reduction in the average mean dose of the rectal wall was found, from 22.5 to 20.1 Gy for the FDVH and from 22.5 to 19.6 Gy for the mFBP method.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
With both dose-prediction methods the initial settings of the template could be personalized. Hereby, the average dose to the rectal wall was reduced compared to the standard template method.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35146138
doi: 10.1016/j.phro.2022.01.006
pii: S2405-6316(22)00006-9
pmc: PMC8819373
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
24-29Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: The authors Martijn Kusters, Peter van Kollenburg and René Monshouwer have a Research Agreement with Philips oncology solutions. The Authors Liza Bouwmans and Karl Bzdusek work for Philips Radiation oncology systems.
Références
Radiother Oncol. 2018 Aug;128(2):343-348
pubmed: 29970259
Sci Rep. 2019 Jan 31;9(1):1076
pubmed: 30705354
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Apr 1;88(5):1175-9
pubmed: 24529714
Phys Med. 2020 Dec;80:167-174
pubmed: 33189047
Med Phys. 2017 Oct;44(10):5486-5497
pubmed: 28777469
Med Phys. 2019 Jan;46(1):370-381
pubmed: 30383300
Phys Med. 2019 Jan;57:115-122
pubmed: 30738515
Phys Med. 2018 Sep;53:86-93
pubmed: 30241759
Radiother Oncol. 2020 Dec;153:67-78
pubmed: 32976873
Radiother Oncol. 2016 Jun;119(3):381-7
pubmed: 27157889
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Mar 1;91(3):612-20
pubmed: 25680603
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2019 Nov-Dec;24(6):533-543
pubmed: 31641339
Front Oncol. 2021 Jun 01;11:636529
pubmed: 34141608
Phys Med. 2017 Dec;44:199-204
pubmed: 28705507
Radiother Oncol. 2019 Apr;133:198-204
pubmed: 30448001
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020 Jul;21(7):119-127
pubmed: 32363757
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Jan 1;82(1):e83-90
pubmed: 21300448
Med Dosim. 2017 Autumn;42(3):203-209
pubmed: 28549556