Radiation Safety and Quality Assurance Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan.
Division of Medical Physics, EuroMediTech Co., LTD., 2-20-4 higashigotanda, shinagawa-ku Tokyo, 141-0022, Japan.
Med Dosim. 2024;49(3):244-253. doi: 10.1016/j.meddos.2024.01.007. Epub 2024 Feb 17.
Previous plan competitions have largely focused on dose metric assessments. However, whether the submitted plans were realistic and reasonable from a quality assurance (QA) perspective remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between aperture-based plan complexity metrics (PCM) in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) competition plans and clinical treatment plans verified through patient-specific QA (PSQA). In addition, the association of PCMs with plan quality was examined. A head and neck (HN) plan competition was held for Japanese institutions from June 2019 to July 2019, in which 210 competition plans were submitted. Dose distribution quality was quantified based on dose-volume histogram (DVH) metrics by calculating the dose distribution plan score (DDPS). Differences in PCMs between the two VMAT treatment plan groups (HN plan competitions held in Japan and clinically accepted HN VMAT plans through PSQA) were investigated. The mean (± standard deviation) DDPS for the 98 HN competition plans was 158.5 ± 20.6 (maximum DDPS: 200). DDPS showed a weak correlation with PCMs with a maximum r of 0.45 for monitor unit (MU); its correlation with some PCMs was "very weak." Significant differences were found in some PCMs between plans with the highest 20% DDPSs and the remaining plans. The clinical VMAT and competition plans revealed similar distributions for some PCMs. Deviations in PCMs for the two groups were comparable, indicating considerable variability among planners regarding planning skills. The plan complexity for HN VMAT competition plans increased for high-quality plans, as shown by the dose distribution. Direct comparison of PCMs between competition plans and clinically accepted plans showed that the submitted HN VMAT competition plans were realistic and reasonable from the QA perspective. This evaluation may provide a set of criteria for evaluating plan quality in plan competitions.
以往的计划竞赛主要集中在剂量指标评估上。然而,从质量保证(QA)的角度来看,提交的计划是否具有现实性和合理性尚不清楚。本研究旨在探讨容积调制弧形治疗(VMAT)竞赛计划中基于孔径的计划复杂性指标(PCM)与通过患者特异性 QA(PSQA)验证的临床治疗计划之间的关系。此外,还研究了 PCM 与计划质量的相关性。2019 年 6 月至 7 月,日本机构举办了一项头颈部(HN)计划竞赛,共提交了 210 项竞赛计划。通过计算剂量分布计划评分(DDPS),基于剂量-体积直方图(DVH)指标量化剂量分布质量。研究了两组 VMAT 治疗计划(在日本举行的 HN 计划竞赛和通过 PSQA 接受的临床 HN VMAT 计划)之间 PCM 的差异。98 项 HN 竞赛计划的平均(±标准差)DDPS 为 158.5±20.6(最大 DDPS:200)。DDPS 与 MU 的 PCM 相关性较弱,最大 r 为 0.45;与某些 PCM 的相关性为“非常弱”。在 DDPS 最高的 20%计划和其余计划之间,发现某些 PCM 存在显著差异。具有最高 20%DDPS 的计划和其余计划之间在某些 PCMs 上存在差异。两组之间的 PCM 偏差相当,这表明规划者在规划技能方面存在相当大的差异。高质量计划的 HN VMAT 竞赛计划的计划复杂性增加,这体现在剂量分布上。对竞赛计划和临床可接受计划之间的 PCM 进行直接比较表明,提交的 HN VMAT 竞赛计划从 QA 的角度来看是现实和合理的。这种评估可能为计划竞赛中的计划质量评估提供了一套标准。