Department of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Center, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019 Aug;20(8):65-77. doi: 10.1002/acm2.12679. Epub 2019 Jul 31.
To assess three advanced radiation therapy treatment planning tools on the intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality and consistency when compared to the clinically approved plans, referred as manual plans, which were planned without using any of these advanced planning tools.
Three advanced radiation therapy treatment planning tools, including auto-planning, knowledge-based planning, and multiple criteria optimization, were assessed on 20 previously treated clinical cases. Three institutions participated in this study, each with expertise in one of these tools. The twenty cases were retrospectively selected from Cleveland Clinic, including five head-and-neck (HN) cases, five brain cases, five prostate with pelvic lymph nodes cases, and five spine cases. A set of general planning objectives and organs-at-risk (OAR) dose constraints for each disease site from Cleveland Clinic was shared with other two institutions. A total of 60 IMRT research plans (20 from each institution) were designed with the same beam configuration as in the respective manual plans. For each disease site, detailed isodoseline distributions and dose volume histograms for a randomly selected representative case were compared among the three research plans and manual plan. In addition, dosimetric endpoints of five cases for each site were compared.
Compared to the manual plans, the research plans using advanced tools showed substantial improvement for the HN patient cases, including the maximum dose to the spinal cord and brainstem and mean dose to the parotid glands. For the brain, prostate, and spine cases, the four types of plans were comparable based on dosimetric endpoint comparisons.
With minimal planner interventions, advanced treatment planning tools are clinically useful, producing a plan quality similarly to or better than manual plans, improving plan consistency. For difficult cases such as HN cancer, advanced planning tools can further reduce radiation doses to numerous OARs while delivering adequate dose to the tumor targets.
评估三种先进的放射治疗计划工具在调强放射治疗(IMRT)质量和一致性方面的表现,与临床批准的计划(即手动计划)相比,这些手动计划在制定过程中未使用任何这些先进的计划工具。
三种先进的放射治疗计划工具,包括自动计划、基于知识的计划和多准则优化,在 20 例先前治疗的临床病例上进行了评估。三个机构参与了这项研究,每个机构都在其中一种工具方面具有专业知识。这 20 个病例是从克利夫兰诊所回顾性选择的,包括 5 例头颈部(HN)病例、5 例脑部病例、5 例前列腺伴盆腔淋巴结病例和 5 例脊柱病例。克利夫兰诊所为每个疾病部位制定了一套通用的计划目标和危及器官(OAR)剂量限制,并与其他两个机构共享。总共设计了 60 个 IMRT 研究计划(每个机构 20 个),其射束配置与各自的手动计划相同。对于每个疾病部位,比较了三种研究计划和手动计划中一个随机选择的代表性病例的详细等剂量线分布和剂量体积直方图。此外,还比较了每个部位的五个病例的剂量学终点。
与手动计划相比,使用先进工具的研究计划在 HN 患者病例中显示出了显著的改善,包括脊髓和脑干的最大剂量和腮腺的平均剂量。对于脑部、前列腺和脊柱病例,基于剂量学终点比较,四种类型的计划具有可比性。
在最小化计划师干预的情况下,先进的治疗计划工具具有临床实用性,其计划质量与手动计划相似或更好,提高了计划的一致性。对于 HN 癌症等困难病例,先进的计划工具可以进一步降低多个 OAR 的辐射剂量,同时为肿瘤靶区提供足够的剂量。