RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The standard in Denmark for treating breast cancer patients receiving loco-regional irradiation is tangential 3D Conformal RadioTherapy (3DCRT), treated in deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH). Treating with Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) may reduce the treatment time, which is particularly important for DIBH treatments. The VMAT should be performed without increased dose to the heart, lung, and contralateral breast. This study compares VMAT and 3DCRT for left-sided breast cancer patients with intramammary lymph node involvement. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty left-sided breast cancer patients were included. VMAT and tangential plans were created for all patients, with a prescription dose of 50 Gy. The tangential plans used 6 MV and for larger breast combined with 18 MV. The VMAT plans utilised two 6 MV fields in a butterfly configuration. Dose planning was done in Pinnacle3 16.0 using the Auto-Planning module for the VMAT plans. Comparison of the plans was based on: mean doses, metrics provided by DBCG guidelines, dose-volume histograms and required number of breath-holds for treatment delivery in DIBH. RESULTS: For most OAR, the doses were similar for VMAT and 3DCRT. The target coverage was comparable, with VMAT having a statistically significant improved dose homogeneity of the target volumes. Less than half the number of breath-hold was required for VMAT compared to 3DCRT. Mean gamma pass rates (3 mm and 3%) from ArcCHECK of the VMAT plans was 98.4% (range 96.6-99.8%). CONCLUSION: Automatic VMAT planning of left-sided breast cancer patients with lymph node involvement can produce dose distributions comparable to those of tangential 3DCRT, while reducing the number of breath-holds in DIBH by more than a factor of two. The reduction in breath-holds is beneficial for patient comfort and reduces the risk of intra-fraction patient motion.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The quality of radiotherapy planning has improved substantially in the last decade with the introduction of intensity modulated radiotherapy. The purpose of this study was to analyze the plan quality and efficacy of automatically (AU) generated VMAT plans for inoperable esophageal cancer patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-two consecutive inoperable patients with esophageal cancer originally treated with manually (MA) generated volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were retrospectively replanned using an auto-planning engine. All plans were optimized with one full 6MV VMAT arc giving 60 Gy to the primary target and 50 Gy to the elective target. The planning techniques were blinded before clinical evaluation by three specialized oncologists. To supplement the clinical evaluation, the optimization time for the AU plan was recorded along with DVH parameters for all plans. RESULTS: Upon clinical evaluation, the AU plan was preferred for 31/32 patients, and for one patient, there was no difference in the plans. In terms of DVH parameters, similar target coverage was obtained between the two planning methods. The mean dose for the spinal cord increased by 1.8 Gy using AU (p = .002), whereas the mean lung dose decreased by 1.9 Gy (p < .001). The AU plans were more modulated as seen by the increase of 12% in mean MUs (p = .001). The median optimization time for AU plans was 117 min. CONCLUSIONS: The AU plans were in general preferred and showed a lower mean dose to the lungs. The automation of the planning process generated esophageal cancer treatment plans quickly and with high quality.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Treatment planning is time-consuming and the outcome depends on the person performing the optimization. A system that automates treatment planning could potentially reduce the manual time required for optimization and could also provide a method to reduce the variation between persons performing radiation dose planning (dosimetrist) and potentially improve the overall plan quality. This study evaluates the performance of the Auto-Planning module that has recently become clinically available in the Pinnacle3 radiation therapy treatment planning system. Twenty-six clinically delivered head and neck treatment plans were reoptimized with the Auto-Planning module. Comparison of the two types of treatment plans were performed using DVH metrics and a blinded clinical evaluation by two senior radiation oncologists using a scale from one to six. Both evaluations investigated dose coverage of target and dose to healthy tissues. Auto-Planning was able to produce clinically acceptable treatment plans in all 26 cases. Target coverages in the two types of plans were similar, but automatically generated plans had less irradiation of healthy tissue. In 94% of the evaluations, the autoplans scored at least as high as the previously delivered clinical plans. For all patients, the Auto-Planning tool produced clinically acceptable head and neck treatment plans without any manual intervention, except for the initial target and OAR delineations. The main benefit of the method is the likely improvement in the overall treatment quality since consistent, high-quality plans are generated which even can be further optimized, if necessary. This makes it possible for the dosimetrist to focus more time on difficult dose planning goals and to spend less time on the more tedious parts of the planning process.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Treatment plans for head and neck (H&N) cancer are highly complex due to multiple dose prescription levels and numerous organs at risk (OARs) close to the target. The plan quality is inter-planner dependent since it is dependent on the skills and experience of the dosimetrist. This study presents a blinded prospective clinical comparison of automatic (AU) and manually (MA) generated H&N VMAT plans made for clinical use. METHODS: MA and AU plans were generated for 30 consecutive patients in Pinnacle3 using the IMRT optimisation module and the new Autoplan module, respectively. The plan quality was blindedly compared by three senior oncologists and the best plan was selected for treatment of the patient. Planning time was measured as the active operator time used. The plan quality was analysed with DVH metrics and the dose delivery accuracy validated on the ArcCheck phantom. RESULTS: For twenty-nine out of the thirty patients the AU plan was chosen for treatment. Target doses were more homogenous with the AU plans and the OAR doses were significantly reduced, between 0.5 and 6.5 Gy. The average operator time spent on creating a manual plan was 64 min which was halved by Autoplan. The AU plans were more modulated as illustrated by an increase in MUs, which might cause the slightly lower pass rate of 97.7% in the ArcCheck measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Target doses were similar between MA and AU plan, while AU plans spared all OAR considerably better than the MA plans.