RESUMEN
Two methods for non-coplanar beam direction optimization, one for static beams and another for arc trajectories, were proposed for intracranial tumours. The results of the beam angle optimizations were compared with the beam directions used in the clinical plans. Ten meningioma cases already treated were selected for this retrospective planning study. Algorithms for non-coplanar beam angle optimization (BAO) and arc trajectory optimization (ATO) were used to generate the corresponding plans. A plan quality score, calculated by a graphical method for plan assessment and comparison, was used to guide the beam angle optimization process. For each patient, the clinical plans (CLIN), created with the static beam orientations used for treatment, and coplanar VMAT approximated plans (VMAT) were also generated. To make fair plan comparisons, all plan optimizations were performed in an automated multicriteria calculation engine and the dosimetric plan quality was assessed. BAO and ATO plans presented, on average, moderate global plan score improvements over VMAT and CLIN plans. Nevertheless, while BAO and CLIN plans assured a more efficient OARs sparing, the ATO and VMAT plans presented a higher coverage and conformity of the PTV. Globally, all plans presented high-quality dose distributions. No statistically significant quality differences were found, on average, between BAO, ATO and CLIN plans. However, automated plan solution optimizations (BAO or ATO) may improve plan generation efficiency and standardization. In some individual patients, plan quality improvements were achieved with ATO plans, demonstrating the possible benefits of this automated optimized delivery technique.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Meníngeas , Meningioma , Radioterapia de Intensidad Modulada , Humanos , Neoplasias Meníngeas/radioterapia , Meningioma/radioterapia , Dosificación Radioterapéutica , Planificación de la Radioterapia Asistida por Computador , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: This work aims at clinically validating a graphical tool developed for treatment plan assessment, named SPIDERplan, by comparing the plan choices based on its scoring with the radiation oncologists (RO) clinical preferences. METHODS: SPIDERplan validation was performed for nasopharynx pathology in two steps. In the first step, three ROs from three Portuguese radiotherapy departments were asked to blindly evaluate and rank the dose distributions of twenty pairs of treatment plans. For plan ranking, the best plan from each pair was selected. For plan evaluation, the qualitative classification of 'Good', 'Admissible with minor deviations' and 'Not Admissible' were assigned to each plan. In the second step, SPIDERplan was applied to the same twenty patient cases. The tool was configured for two sets of structures groups: the local clinical set and the groups of structures suggested in international guidelines for nasopharynx cancer. Group weights, quantifying the importance of each group and incorporated in SPIDERplan, were defined according to RO clinical preferences and determined automatically by applying a mixed linear programming model for implicit elicitation of preferences. Intra- and inter-rater ROs plan selection and evaluation were assessed using Brennan-Prediger kappa coefficient. RESULTS: Two-thirds of the plans were qualitatively evaluated by the ROs as 'Good'. Concerning intra- and inter-rater variabilities of plan selection, fair agreements were obtained for most of the ROs. For plan evaluation, substantial agreements were verified in most cases. The choice of the best plan made by SPIDERplan was identical for all sets of groups and, in most cases, agreed with RO plan selection. Differences between RO choice and SPIDERplan analysis only occurred in cases for which the score differences between the plans was very low. A score difference threshold of 0.005 was defined as the value below which two plans are considered of equivalent quality. CONCLUSION: Generally, SPIDERplan response successfully reproduced the ROs plan selection. SPIDERplan assessment performance can represent clinical preferences based either on manual or automatic group weight assignment. For nasopharynx cases, SPIDERplan was robust in terms of the definitions of structure groups, being able to support different configurations without losing accuracy.
Asunto(s)
Algoritmos , Gráficos por Computador , Neoplasias Nasofaríngeas/radioterapia , Garantía de la Calidad de Atención de Salud/normas , Planificación de la Radioterapia Asistida por Computador/métodos , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Órganos en Riesgo/efectos de la radiación , Dosificación Radioterapéutica , Radioterapia de Intensidad Modulada/métodosRESUMEN
PURPOSE: To compare two beam angle optimization (BAO) algorithms for coplanar and non-coplanar geometries in a multicriterial optimization framework. METHODS: 40 nasopharynx patients were selected for this retrospective planning study. IMRT optimized plans were produced by Erasmus-iCycle multicriterial optimization platform. Two different algorithms, based on a discrete and on a continuous exploration of the space search, algorithm i and B respectively, were used to address BAO. Plan quality evaluation and comparison were performed with SPIDERplan. Statistically significant differences between the plans were also assessed. RESULTS: For plans using only coplanar incidences, the optimized beam distribution with algorithm i is more asymmetric than with algorithm B. For non-coplanar beam optimization, larger deviations from coplanarity were obtained with algorithm i than with algorithm B. Globally, both algorithms presented near equivalent plan quality scores, with algorithm B presenting a marginally better performance than algorithm i. CONCLUSION: Almost all plans presented high quality, profiting from multicriterial and beam angular optimization. Although there were not significant differences when average results over the entire sample were considered, a case-by-case analysis revealed important differences for some patients.