A B S T R A C TBackground and purpose: Inter-institutional studies highlighted correlation between consistent radiotherapy quality and improved overall patient survival. In treatment planning automation has the potential to address differences due to user-experience and training, promoting standardisation. The aim of this study was to evaluate implementation and clinical effect of a multicentre collaboratively-developed automated planning model for Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy/ Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy of prostate. The model was built using a variety of public institutions' clinical plans, incorporating different contouring and dose protocols, aiming at minimising their variation. Methods and materials: A model using 110 clinically approved and treated prostate plans provided by different radiotherapy centres was built with RapidPlan (RP), for use on intact and post-prostatectomy prostate cases. The model was validated, distributed and introduced into clinical practice in all institutions. To investigate its impact a total of 126 patients, originally manually inverse planned (OP), were replanned using RP without additional planner manual intervention. Target and organat-risk (OAR) metrics were statistically compared between original and automated plans. Results: For all centres combined and individually, RP provided plans comparable or superior to OP for all dose metrics. Statistically significant reductions with RP were found in bladder (V40Gy) and rectal (V50Gy) low doses (within 2.3% and 3.4% for combined and 4% and 10% individually). No clinically significant changes were seen for the PTV, independently of seminal vesicle inclusion. Conclusion: This project showed it is feasible to develop, share and implement RP models created with plans from different institutions treated with a variety of techniques and dose protocols, with the potential of improving treatment planning results and/or efficiency despite the original variability.
IntroductionChemoradiotherapy is the standard of care for anal cancer. Sizeable target volume leads to significant toxicity. We compared four different 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) techniques with the aim of finding the best technique to achieve the lowest dose to the organs at risk (OAR) without compromising the planning target volume (PTV) coverage.MethodsFifteen computed tomography (CT) data sets from previously treated anal cancer patients (five male and 10 female) were re-contoured according to the Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Group (AGITG) anal cancer contouring guidelines for N3 disease. Four different 3DCRT plans for each CT data set (standard, V-shape, diamond shape and alternate diamond shape) were generated. Comparisons of the radiation dose to non-rectal bowel (NRB), urinary bladder, genitalia, and femurs were performed.ResultsV-shape technique achieved significantly lower NRB V40 (mean = 59.6% SD = 11%) than diamond (63.8% SD = 13%), standard (63.8% SD = 11%) and alternate diamond (63.6% SD = 12%) techniques. V-shape technique achieved the lowest mean bladder dose (mean = 45.3 Gy SD = 1.4 Gy). Diamond technique achieved the lowest femur V40 (mean = 32.4%) P < 0.001 for all comparisons between diamond and all other techniques. For genitalia V40, diamond technique (mean = 26.4% SD = 20%) and alternate diamond technique (mean = 27.6% SD = 20%) achieved significantly lower dose than V-shape technique (mean = 43.2% SD = 26%) and standard technique (mean = 76.1% SD = 16%) P < 0.001 for all comparisons.ConclusionsSophisticated 3DCRT techniques are superior to conventional techniques. Different 3DCRT techniques provide varying levels of dose reduction to OAR, with none of the four techniques investigated capable of reducing dose to all OAR. A combination of techniques may provide the best solution. Further refinement of these techniques should be explored.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.