Medical Physic Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero - Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Radiation Oncology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero - Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy; Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences "Mario Serio", University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Radiother Oncol. 2019 Mar;132:85-92. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.11.006. Epub 2018 Dec 21.
To evaluate the quality of accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) plans generated by the Auto-Planning module of a commercial treatment planning system (TPS).
Twenty patients, previously planned and treated with manual planning in a TPS (manM), were re-planned using manual (manP) and automatic (AP) module of a different TPS. Plans were compared in terms of dosimetric parameters, degree of modulation, monitor units and treatment time, and by blind qualitative scoring by a physician. Dosimetric verification was evaluated in terms of γ passing rate and point dose measurements. Statistical differences were evaluated using paired two-sided Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.
A statistically significant improvement in PTV coverage was observed for AP plans compared to clinical plans, while no differences in organs at risk doses were observed. When compared to manP plans, a statistically significant improvement was observed for PTV coverage and homogeneity and for the ipsilateral breast and lung dosimetric parameters. The modulation degree was reduced with AP compared to manM treatment plans, while it was increased compared to manP treatment plans. No differences were observed in γ passing rate. Planning time was reduced from (54.5 ± 8.0) min for manM planning and (62.8 ± 15.0) min for manP planning to (9.8 ± 1.1) min for AP. In the qualitative scoring, AP plans were considered superior both to manM (10/20 cases) and manP plans (12/20 cases) with high clinical relevance.
Automatic planning for VMAT APBI was always at least equivalent and overall superior to manual planning.
评估商业治疗计划系统(TPS)自动规划模块生成的加速部分乳房照射(APBI)计划的质量。
对 20 名患者进行了回顾性分析,这些患者先前使用 TPS(manM)的手动规划进行了规划和治疗,现在使用另一个 TPS 的手动(manP)和自动(AP)模块进行了重新规划。计划在剂量学参数、调制程度、监测单位和治疗时间方面进行了比较,并由医生进行了盲法定性评分。通过γ通过率和点剂量测量评估剂量验证。使用配对双侧 Wilcoxon 符号秩检验评估统计学差异。
与临床计划相比,AP 计划在 PTV 覆盖方面有统计学显著改善,而在危及器官剂量方面没有差异。与 manP 计划相比,AP 计划在 PTV 覆盖和均匀性以及同侧乳房和肺剂量学参数方面有统计学显著改善。与 manM 治疗计划相比,AP 计划的调制程度降低,而与 manP 治疗计划相比,调制程度增加。γ通过率无差异。规划时间从 manM 规划的(54.5±8.0)分钟和 manP 规划的(62.8±15.0)分钟减少到 AP 规划的(9.8±1.1)分钟。在定性评分中,AP 计划被认为优于 manM(10/20 例)和 manP 计划(12/20 例),具有很高的临床相关性。
VMAT APBI 的自动规划始终至少与手动规划相当,总体上优于手动规划。