Pre-clinical validation of a novel system for fully-automated treatment planning. (May 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bijman, Rik; Sharfo, Abdul Wahab; Rossi, Linda; Breedveld, Sebastiaan; Heijmen, Ben
• Is Part Of: Radiotherapy and oncology. Volume 158(2021)
• Page Start: 253
• Page End: 261
• Publication Date: 2021-05
• Subjects: Automated treatment planning -- Multi-criterial optimization (MCO) -- Validation; Oncology -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Tumors -- Periodicals; Medical Oncology -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Radiothérapie -- Périodiques; Cancérologie -- Périodiques; Tumeurs -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 616.9940642
• DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.03.003
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0167-8140

Abstract

Highlights: Development of a novel system for fully automated multi-criterial optimization (MCO). Validation of novel system against in-house developed system for fully automated MCO. Plan quality of both systems was highly similar for 4 treatment planning protocols. Abstract: Introduction: Many approaches for automated treatment planning (autoplanning) have been proposed and investigated. Autoplanning can enhance plan quality compared to 'manual' trial-and-error planning, and decrease routine planning workload. A few approaches have been implemented in commercial treatment planning systems (TPSs). We performed a pre-clinical validation of a new system ('NovelATP') that is based on fully-automated multi-criterial optimization (MCO). The aim of NovelATP is to automatically generate for each patient a single high-quality, Pareto-optimal plan without manual Pareto navigation. Material and methods: Validation was performed by generating VMAT/IMRT plans for conventional treatment of prostate cancer (101 pts), prostate SBRT (20 pts), bilateral head-and-neck cancer (50 pts) and rectal cancer treated at an MR-Linac (23 pts). NovelATP autoplans were compared to plans that were generated with our in-house autoplanning system. In many previous validation studies, the latter system consistently showed enhanced plan quality when compared to manual planning. Results: Dosimetrical differences between NovelATP and benchmark plans were on average small and presumably not clinically relevant, pointing at high NovelATP dosimetric plan quality. MUs were 11–19% higher with NovelATP. NovelATP delivery times were up to 12% longer. Overall, there was a slight disadvantage for NovelATP regarding gamma analyses. Calculation times for NovelATP plans were between 29 and 151 min with no overall differences with the benchmark plans. Conclusion: The new autoplanning system was able to produce high-quality plans for four highly different planning protocols/treatment sites with a total of 194 patients investigated.