Cui Taoran, Nie Ke, Zhu Jiahua, Danish Shabbar, Weiner Joseph, Chundury Anupama, Ohri Nisha, Zhang Yin, Vergalasova Irina, Yue Ning, Wang Xiao
Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers-Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.
Department of Radiation Oncology, Reading Hospital, Tower Health, West Reading, PA, United States.
Front Oncol. 2022 Feb 23;12:832656. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.832656. eCollection 2022.
The purpose of this study is to independently compare the performance of the inverse planning algorithm utilized in Gamma Knife (GK) Lightning Treatment Planning System (TPS) to manual forward planning, between experienced and inexperienced users, for different types of targets.
Forty patients treated with GK stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for pituitary adenoma (PA), vestibular schwannoma (VS), post-operative brain metastases (pBM), and intact brain metastases (iBM) were randomly selected, ten for each site. Three inversely optimized plans were generated for each case by two experienced planners (OptExp1 and OptExp2) and a novice planner (OptNov) using GK Lightning TPS. For each treatment site, the Gradient Index (GI), the Paddick Conformity Index (PCI), the prescription percentage, the scaled beam-on time (sBOT), the number of shots used, and dosimetric metrics to OARs were compared first between the inversely optimized plans and the manually generated clinical plans, and then among the inversely optimized plans. Statistical analyses were performed using the Student's t-test and the ANOVA followed by the post-hoc Tukey tests.
The GI for the inversely optimized plans significantly outperformed the clinical plans for all sites. PCIs were similar between the inversely optimized and clinical plans for PA and VS, but were significantly improved in the inversely optimized plans for iBM and pBM. There were no significant differences in the sBOT between the inversely optimized and clinical plans, except for the PA cases. No significant differences were observed in dosimetric metrics, except for lower brain V and PTV D in the inversely optimized plans for iBM. There were no noticeable differences in plan qualities among the inversely optimized plans created by the novice and experienced planners.
Inverse planning in GK Lightning TPS produces GK SRS plans at least equivalent in plan quality and similar in sBOT compared to manual forward planning in this independent validation study. The automatic workflow of inversed planning ensures a consistent plan quality regardless of a planner's experience.
本研究旨在独立比较伽玛刀(GK)闪电治疗计划系统(TPS)中使用的逆向计划算法与手动正向计划在不同类型靶区、经验丰富和经验不足的用户之间的性能。
随机选择40例接受GK立体定向放射外科治疗(SRS)的患者,包括垂体腺瘤(PA)、前庭神经鞘瘤(VS)、术后脑转移瘤(pBM)和完整脑转移瘤(iBM),每个部位10例。两名经验丰富的计划者(OptExp1和OptExp2)和一名新手计划者(OptNov)使用GK闪电TPS为每个病例生成三个逆向优化计划。对于每个治疗部位,首先比较逆向优化计划与手动生成的临床计划之间的梯度指数(GI)、帕迪克适形指数(PCI)、处方百分比、缩放射束开启时间(sBOT)、使用的射束数以及对危及器官的剂量学指标,然后比较逆向优化计划之间的这些指标。使用学生t检验和方差分析(ANOVA)以及事后Tukey检验进行统计分析。
所有部位的逆向优化计划的GI均显著优于临床计划。PA和VS的逆向优化计划与临床计划的PCI相似,但iBM和pBM的逆向优化计划的PCI显著改善。除PA病例外,逆向优化计划与临床计划的sBOT无显著差异。除iBM的逆向优化计划中脑V和PTV D较低外,剂量学指标无显著差异。新手计划者和经验丰富的计划者创建的逆向优化计划在计划质量上没有明显差异。
在本独立验证研究中,与手动正向计划相比,GK闪电TPS中的逆向计划产生的GK SRS计划在计划质量上至少相当,且sBOT相似。逆向计划的自动工作流程确保了无论计划者的经验如何,计划质量都能保持一致。