First fully automated planning solution for robotic radiosurgery – comparison with automatically planned volumetric arc therapy for prostate cancer. (2nd November 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rossi, Linda; Sharfo, Abdul Wahab; Aluwini, Shafak; Dirkx, Maarten; Breedveld, Sebastiaan; Heijmen, Ben
• Is Part Of: Acta oncologica. Volume 57:Number 11(2018)
• Page Start: 1490
• Page End: 1498
• Publication Date: 2018-11-02
• Subjects: Oncology -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Treatment -- Periodicals; 616.992
• DOI: 10.1080/0284186X.2018.1479068
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0284-186X

Abstract

Abstract: Background: For conventional radiotherapy treatment units, automated planning can significantly improve plan quality. For robotic radiosurgery, systems for automatic generation of clinically deliverable plans do not yet exist. For prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), few studies have systematically compared VMAT with robotic treatment. Material and methods: The multi-criteria autoplanning optimizer, developed at our institute, was coupled to the commercial treatment planning system of our robotic treatment unit, for fully automated generation of clinically deliverable plans (autoROBOT). The system was then validated by comparing autoROBOT plans with manually generated plans. Next, the autoROBOT system was used for systematic comparisons between autoROBOT plans and VMAT plans, that were also automatically generated (autoVMAT). CTV-PTV margins of 3 mm were used for autoROBOT (clinical routine) and autoVMAT plan generation. For autoVMAT, an extra plan was generated with 5 mm margin (often applied for VMAT). Plans were generated for a 4 × 9.5 Gy fractionation scheme. Results: Compared to manual planning, autoROBOT improved rectum D (16%), V (75%) and D (41%), and bladder D (37%) (all p .002), with equal PTV coverage. In the autoROBOT and autoVMAT comparison, both with 3 mm margin, rectum doses were lower for autoROBOT by 5% for rectum D ( p =.002), 33% for V ( p =.001) and 4% for D ( p =.05), with comparable PTV coverage and other OAR sparing. With 5 mm margin for VMAT, 18/20 plans had a PTV coverage lower than requested (<95%) and all plans had higher rectum doses than autoROBOT (mean percentage differences of 13% for D, 69% for V and 32% for D (all p <.001)). Conclusions: The first system for fully automated generation of clinically deliverable robotic plans was built. Autoplanning did largely enhance robotic plan quality, compared to manual planning. Using autoplanning for both the robotic system and VMAT, superiority of non-coplanar robotic treatment compared to coplanar VMAT for prostate SBRT was demonstrated.