Comparative evaluation of two dose-volume histogram prediction tools for treatment planning: Treatment planning quality and dose verification accuracy.

PURPOSE

This study aims to compare treatment plans created using RapidPlan and PlanIQ for twelve patients with prostate cancer, focusing on dose uniformity, dose reduction to organs at risk (OARs), plan complexity, and dose verification accuracy. The goal is to identify the tool that demonstrates superior performance in achieving uniform target dose distribution and reducing OAR dose, while ensuring accurate dose verification.

METHODS

Dose uniformity in the planning target volume, excluding the rectum, and dose reduction in the OARs (the rectum and bladder) were assessed. The validation included point-dose measurements with an ionization chamber dosimeter and gamma analysis of dose distributions. Monitor units were calculated to evaluate plan complexity.

RESULTS

PlanIQ provided superior dose uniformity, with improvements in the dose homogeneity index compared with RapidPlan. RapidPlan was more effective in reducing OAR doses, particularly in the rectum, with significant reductions at various dose levels. Dose verification showed no significant differences between the two tools. However, PlanIQ showed a smaller mean difference between the calculated and measured doses and a slightly better dose distribution match with less variability than RapidPlan.

CONCLUSIONS

RapidPlan was more effective at reducing OAR doses, whereas PlanIQ achieved better dose uniformity and lower plan complexity. Both tools performed similarly in terms of dose verification accuracy, with PlanIQ showing a slight advantage in dose-distribution matching. The choice of planning tool depends on the primary treatment goal, whether it is to reduce the OAR doses or improve the target dose uniformity.