Delaney Alexander R, Dong Lei, Mascia Anthony, Zou Wei, Zhang Yongbin, Yin Lingshu, Rosas Sara, Hrbacek Jan, Lomax Antony J, Slotman Ben J, Dahele Max, Verbakel Wilko F A R
Cancer Center Amsterdam, Department of Radiation Oncology, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
Cancers (Basel). 2018 Nov 2;10(11):420. doi: 10.3390/cancers10110420.
Radiotherapy treatment planning is increasingly automated and knowledge-based planning has been shown to match and sometimes improve upon manual clinical plans, with increased consistency and efficiency. In this study, we benchmarked a novel prototype knowledge-based intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) planning solution, against three international proton centers. A model library was constructed, comprising 50 head and neck cancer (HNC) manual IMPT plans from a single center. Three external-centers each provided seven manual benchmark IMPT plans. A knowledge-based plan (KBP) using a standard beam arrangement for each patient was compared with the benchmark plan on the basis of planning target volume (PTV) coverage and homogeneity and mean organ-at-risk (OAR) dose. PTV coverage and homogeneity of KBPs and benchmark plans were comparable. KBP mean OAR dose was lower in 32/54, 45/48 and 38/53 OARs from center-A, -B and -C, with 23/32, 38/45 and 23/38 being >2 Gy improvements, respectively. In isolated cases the standard beam arrangement or an OAR not being included in the model or being contoured differently, led to higher individual KBP OAR doses. Generating a KBP typically required <10 min. A knowledge-based IMPT planning solution using a single-center model could efficiently generate plans of comparable quality to manual HNC IMPT plans from centers with differing planning aims. Occasional higher KBP OAR doses highlight the need for beam angle optimization and manual review of KBPs. The solution furthermore demonstrated the potential for robust optimization.
放射治疗治疗计划正日益自动化,基于知识的计划已被证明与手动临床计划相匹配,有时甚至有所改进,且一致性和效率更高。在本研究中,我们将一种新型的基于知识的强度调制质子治疗(IMPT)计划解决方案与三个国际质子中心进行了基准测试。构建了一个模型库,其中包含来自单个中心的50个头颈癌(HNC)手动IMPT计划。三个外部中心各提供了七个手动基准IMPT计划。将针对每个患者使用标准射束排列的基于知识的计划(KBP)与基准计划在计划靶区(PTV)覆盖范围、均匀性和平均危及器官(OAR)剂量方面进行比较。KBP和基准计划的PTV覆盖范围和均匀性相当。来自中心A、B和C的KBP平均OAR剂量在32/54、45/48和38/53个OAR中较低,其中23/32、38/45和23/38个分别有>2 Gy的改善。在个别情况下,标准射束排列或模型中未包含的OAR或轮廓不同,会导致个别KBP的OAR剂量更高。生成一个KBP通常需要<10分钟。使用单中心模型的基于知识的IMPT计划解决方案可以高效地生成与来自具有不同计划目标的中心的手动HNC IMPT计划质量相当的计划。偶尔出现的较高KBP OAR剂量突出了射束角度优化和对KBP进行人工审查的必要性。该解决方案还展示了稳健优化的潜力。