Plan evaluation is a key step in the radiotherapy treatment workflow. Central to this step is the assessment of treatment plan quality. Hence, it is important to agree on what we mean by plan quality and to be fully aware of which parameters it depends on. We understand plan quality in radiotherapy as the clinical suitability of the delivered dose distribution that can be realistically expected from a treatment plan. Plan quality is commonly assessed by evaluating the dose distribution calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS). Evaluating the 3D dose distribution is not easy, however; it is hard to fully evaluate its spatial characteristics and we still lack the knowledge for personalising the prediction of the clinical outcome based on individual patient characteristics. This advocates for standardisation and systematic collection of clinical data and outcomes after radiotherapy. Additionally, the calculated dose distribution is not exactly the dose delivered to the patient due to uncertainties in the dose calculation and the treatment delivery, including variations in the patient set-up and anatomy. Consequently, plan quality also depends on the robustness and complexity of the treatment plan. We believe that future work and consensus on the best metrics for quality indices are required. Better tools are needed in TPSs for the evaluation of dose distributions, for the robust evaluation and optimisation of treatment plans, and for controlling and reporting plan complexity. Implementation of such tools and a better understanding of these concepts will facilitate the handling of these characteristics in clinical practice and be helpful to increase the overall quality of treatment plans in radiotherapy.

Background and purpose: In radiotherapy, automatic organ-at-risk segmentation algorithms allow faster delineation times, but clinically relevant contour evaluation remains challenging. Commonly used measures to assess automatic contours, such as volumetric Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) or Hausdorff distance, have shown to be good measures for geometric similarity, but do not always correlate with clinical applicability of the contours, or time needed to adjust them. This study aimed to evaluate the correlation of new and commonly used evaluation measures with time-saving during contouring. Materials and methods: Twenty lung cancer patients were used to compare user-adjustments after atlas-based and deep-learning contouring with manual contouring. The absolute time needed (s) of adjusting the auto-contour compared to manual contouring was recorded, from this relative time-saving (%) was calculated. New evaluation measures (surface DSC and added path length, APL) and conventional evaluation measures (volumetric DSC and Hausdorff distance) were correlated with time-recordings and time-savings, quantified with the Pearson correlation coefficient, R. Results: The highest correlation (R = 0.87) was found between APL and absolute adaption time. Lower correlations were found for APL with relative time-saving (R = −0.38), for surface DSC with absolute adaption time (R = −0.69) and relative time-saving (R = 0.57). Volumetric DSC and Hausdorff distance also showed lower correlation coefficients for absolute adaptation time (R = −0.32 and 0.64, respectively) and relative timesaving (R = 0.44 and −0.64, respectively). Conclusion: Surface DSC and APL are better indicators for contour adaptation time and time-saving when using auto-segmentation and provide more clinically relevant and better quantitative measures for automaticallygenerated contour quality, compared to commonly-used geometry-based measures.

BackgroundTo investigate the feasibility of using dual-energy CT (DECT) for tissue segmentation and kilovolt (kV) dose calculations in pre-clinical studies and assess potential dose calculation accuracy gain.MethodsTwo phantoms and an ex-vivo mouse were scanned in a small animal irradiator with two distinct energies. Tissue segmentation was performed with the single-energy CT (SECT) and DECT methods. A number of different material maps was used. Dose calculations were performed to verify the impact of segmentations on the dose accuracy.ResultsDECT showed better overall results in comparison to SECT. Higher number of DECT segmentation media resulted in smaller dose differences in comparison to the reference. Increasing the number of materials in the SECT method yielded more instability. Both modalities showed a limit to which adding more materials with similar characteristics ceased providing better segmentation results, and resulted in more noise in the material maps and the dose distributions. The effect was aggravated with a decrease in beam energy. For the ex-vivo specimen, the choice of only one high dense bone for the SECT method resulted in large volumes of tissue receiving high doses. For the DECT method, the choice of more than one kind of bone resulted in lower dose values for the different tissues occupying the same volume. For the organs at risk surrounded by bone, the doses were lower when using the SECT method in comparison to DECT, due to the high absorption of the bone. SECT material segmentation may lead to an underestimation of the dose to OAR in the proximity of bone.ConclusionsThe DECT method enabled the selection of a higher number of materials thereby increasing the accuracy in dose calculations. In phantom studies, SECT performed best with three materials and DECT with seven for the phantom case. For irradiations in preclinical studies with kV photon energies, the use of DECT segmentation combined with the choice of a low-density bone is recommended.