Interactive dose shaping part 2: proof of concept study for six prostate patients. (7th March 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ph Kamerling, Cornelis; Ziegenhein, Peter; Sterzing, Florian; Oelfke, Uwe
• Is Part Of: Physics in medicine & biology. Volume 61:Number 6(2016:Mar.)
• Page Start: 2471
• Page End: 2484
• Publication Date: 2016-03-07
• Subjects: interactive treatment planning -- radiation therapy -- treatment planning software -- graphical user interface; Biophysics -- Periodicals; Medical physics -- Periodicals; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/61/6/2471
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0031-9155

Abstract

Abstract: Recently we introduced interactive dose shaping (IDS) as a new IMRT planning strategy. This planning concept is based on a hierarchical sequence of local dose modification and recovery operations. The purpose of this work is to provide a feasibility study for the IDS planning strategy based on a small set of six prostate patients. The IDS planning paradigm aims to perform interactive local dose adaptations of an IMRT plan without compromising already established valuable dose features in real-time. Various IDS tools were developed in our in-house treatment planning software Dynaplan and were utilized to create IMRT treatment plans for six patients with an adeno-carcinoma of the prostate. The sequenced IDS treatment plans were compared to conventionally optimized clinically approved plans (9 beams, co-planar). For each patient, several IDS plans were created, with different trade-offs between organ sparing and target coverage. The reference dose distributions were imported into Dynaplan. For each patient, the IDS treatment plan with a similar or better trade-off between target coverage and OAR sparing was selected for plan evaluation, guided by a physician. For this initial study we were able to generate treatment plans for prostate geometries in 15–45 min. Individual local dose adaptations could be performed in less than one second. The average differences compared to the reference plans were for the mean dose: 0.0 Gy (boost) and 1.2 Gy (PTV), for Gy and for Gy (both target volumes). The dose-volume quality indicators were well below the Quantec constraints. However, we also observed limitations of our currently implemented approach. Most prominent was an increase of the non-tumor integral dose by 16.4% on average, demonstrating that further developments of our planning strategy are required.