Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Sep 1;84(1):e69-76. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.02.017.
To compare the quality of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans generated by an automated inverse planning system with that of dosimetrist-generated IMRT treatment plans for patients with stage III lung cancer.
Two groups of 8 patients with stage III lung cancer were randomly selected. For group 1, the dosimetrists spent their best effort in designing IMRT plans to compete with the automated inverse planning system (mdaccAutoPlan); for group 2, the dosimetrists were not in competition and spent their regular effort. Five experienced radiation oncologists independently blind-reviewed and ranked the three plans for each patient: a rank of 1 was the best and 3 was the worst. Dosimetric measures were also performed to quantitatively evaluate the three types of plans.
Blind rankings from different oncologists were generally consistent. For group 1, the auto-VMAT, auto-IMRT, and manual IMRT plans received average ranks of 1.6, 2.13, and 2.18, respectively. The auto-VMAT plans in group 1 had 10% higher planning tumor volume (PTV) conformality and 24% lower esophagus V70 (the volume receiving 70 Gy or more) than the manual IMRT plans; they also resulted in more than 20% higher complication-free tumor control probability (P+) than either type of IMRT plans. The auto- and manual IMRT plans in this group yielded generally comparable dosimetric measures. For group 2, the auto-VMAT, auto-IMRT, and manual IMRT plans received average ranks of 1.55, 1.75, and 2.75, respectively. Compared to the manual IMRT plans in this group, the auto-VMAT plans and auto-IMRT plans showed, respectively, 17% and 14% higher PTV dose conformality, 8% and 17% lower mean lung dose, 17% and 26% lower mean heart dose, and 36% and 23% higher P+.
mdaccAutoPlan is capable of generating high-quality VMAT and IMRT treatment plans for stage III lung cancer. Manual IMRT plans could achieve quality similar to auto-IMRT plans if best effort was spent.
比较由自动逆向计划系统生成的容积调强弧形治疗(VMAT)或调强放射治疗(IMRT)计划与治疗Ⅲ期肺癌患者的剂量师生成的 IMRT 治疗计划的质量。
随机选择两组 8 例Ⅲ期肺癌患者。对于第 1 组,剂量师尽最大努力设计 IMRT 计划以与自动逆向计划系统(mdaccAutoPlan)竞争;对于第 2 组,剂量师没有竞争,只花费正常的努力。5 位有经验的放射肿瘤学家独立对每位患者的三种计划进行盲法评估和排名:1 分是最好的,3 分是最差的。还进行了剂量学测量以定量评估三种类型的计划。
不同肿瘤学家的盲法排名通常是一致的。对于第 1 组,自动-VMAT、自动-IMRT 和手动 IMRT 计划的平均排名分别为 1.6、2.13 和 2.18。第 1 组的自动-VMAT 计划比手动 IMRT 计划有 10%更高的计划肿瘤体积(PTV)适形性和 24%更低的食管 V70(接受 70 Gy 或更高剂量的体积);它们还使无并发症肿瘤控制概率(P+)比任何一种 IMRT 计划高出 20%以上。该组的自动和手动 IMRT 计划产生的剂量学测量结果通常相似。对于第 2 组,自动-VMAT、自动-IMRT 和手动 IMRT 计划的平均排名分别为 1.55、1.75 和 2.75。与该组的手动 IMRT 计划相比,自动-VMAT 计划和自动-IMRT 计划分别显示 PTV 剂量适形性提高了 17%和 14%,平均肺剂量降低了 8%和 17%,平均心脏剂量降低了 17%和 26%,P+提高了 36%和 23%。
mdaccAutoPlan 能够为Ⅲ期肺癌生成高质量的 VMAT 和 IMRT 治疗计划。如果付出最大努力,手动 IMRT 计划可以达到与自动-IMRT 计划相似的质量。