Knowledge‐based planning for the radiation therapy treatment plan quality assurance for patients with head and neck cancer. Issue 6 (30th April 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Cao, Wenhua; Gronberg, Mary; Olanrewaju, Adenike; Whitaker, Thomas; Hoffman, Karen; Cardenas, Carlos; Garden, Adam; Skinner, Heath; Beadle, Beth; Court, Laurence
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 23:Issue 6(2022)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2022-04-30
• Subjects: knowledge‐based planning -- head and neck cancer -- quality assurance; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13614
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of using a knowledge‐based planning technique to detect poor quality VMAT plans for patients with head and neck cancer. We created two dose–volume histogram (DVH) prediction models using a commercial knowledge‐based planning system (RapidPlan, Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) from plans generated by manual planning (MP) and automated planning (AP) approaches. DVHs were predicted for evaluation cohort 1 (EC1) of 25 patients and compared with achieved DVHs of MP and AP plans to evaluate prediction accuracy. Additionally, we predicted DVHs for evaluation cohort 2 (EC2) of 25 patients for which we intentionally generated plans with suboptimal normal tissue sparing while satisfying dose–volume limits of standard practice. Three radiation oncologists reviewed these plans without seeing the DVH predictions. We found that predicted DVH ranges (upper–lower predictions) were consistently wider for the MP model than for the AP model for all normal structures. The average ranges of mean dose predictions among all structures was 9.7 Gy (MP model) and 3.4 Gy (AP model) for EC1 patients. RapidPlan models identified 7 MP plans as outliers according to mean dose or D 1% for at least one structure, while none of AP plans were flagged. For EC2 patients, 22 suboptimal plans were identified by prediction. While re‐generated AP plans validated that these suboptimal plans could be improved, 40 out of 45 structures with predicted poor sparing were also identified by oncologist reviews as requiring additional planning to improve sparing in the clinical setting. Our study shows that knowledge‐based DVH prediction models can be sufficiently accurate for plan quality assurance purposes. A prediction model built by a small cohort automatically‐generated plans was effective in detecting suboptimal plans. Such tools have potential to assist the plan quality assurance workflow for individual patients in the clinic.