IntuitivePlan inverse planning performance evaluation for Gamma Knife radiosurgery of AVMs. Issue 9 (4th August 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Paddick, Ian; Grishchuk, Diana; Dimitriadis, Alexis
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 21:Issue 9(2020)
• Page Start: 90
• Page End: 95
• Publication Date: 2020-08-04
• Subjects: Gamma Knife -- inverse planning -- radiosurgery -- treatment planning; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12973
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: To compare planning indices achieved using manual and inverse planning approaches for Gamma Knife radiosurgery of arterio‐venous malformations (AVMs). Methods and materials: For a series of consecutive AVM patients, treatment plans were manually created by expert planners using Leksell GammaPlan (LGP). Patients were re‐planned using a new commercially released inverse planning system, IntuitivePlan. Plan quality metrics were calculated for both groups of plans and compared. Results: Overall, IntuitivePlan created treatment plans of similar quality to expert planners. For some plan quality metrics statistically significant higher scores were achieved for the inversely generated plans (Coverage 96.8% vs 96.3%, P = 0.027; PCI 0.855 vs 0.824, P = 0.042), but others did not show statistically significant differences (Selectivity 0.884 vs 0.856, P = 0.071; GI 2.85 vs 2.76, P = 0.096; Efficiency Index 47.0% vs 48.1%, P = 0.242; Normal Brain V12 (cc) 5.81 vs 5.79, P = 0.497). Automatic inverse planning demonstrated significantly shorter planning times over manual planning (3.79 vs 11.58 min, P < 10 −6 ) and greater numbers of isocentres (40.4 vs 10.8, P < 10 −6 ), with an associated cost of longer treatment times (57.97 vs 49.52 min, P = 0.009). When planning and treatment time were combined, there was no significant difference in the overall time between the two methods (61.76 vs 61.10, P = 0.433). Conclusions: IntuitivePlan can offer savings on the labor of treatment planning. In many cases, it achieves higher quality indices than those achieved by an "expert planner".