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: It is known that intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans that are highly complex might be less accurate in dose calculation and treatment delivery. Multiple complexity metrics have been proposed, but the relationships between them have not been thoroughly investigated. This study investigated these relationships in multi-institutional comparisons of treatment plans, where plans from multiple treatment planning systems (TPSs) are typically evaluated. Materials and methods: A program was developed to compute several complexity indices and provide analysis of dynamic plan parameters. This in-house software was used to analyse plans from a recent multi-institutional audit. Additionally, 100 clinical volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans from two institutions using different TPSs were analysed. Results: All plans produced satisfactory pre-treatment verification results and, hence, complexity metrics could not be used to predict plans failing QA. Regarding the relationship among complexity indices, some very strong correlations were found (r > 0.9 with p < 0.01). However, some relevant discrepancies between complexity indices were obtained, even with negative correlation coefficients (r ∼ −0.6) which were expected to be positive. These discrepancies could be explained because each complexity index focused on different features of the plan and different TPSs prioritised modulation of different plan parameters. Conclusions: Some complexity indices provided similar information and can be considered equivalent. However, indices that focused on different plan parameters yielded different results and it was unclear which complexity index should be used. Careful consideration should be given to the use of complexity metrics in multi-institutional studies.

No abstract

No abstract

Advanced algorithms used in MV photon radiotherapy model radiation transport in any media. They represent a step forward but introduce new uncertainties and questions, including whether to report the doses to water (Dw,m) or medium (Dm,m) voxels, and the impact of fluence changes introduced by surrounding media. These aspects can compromise consistency between both reporting modes and with previous algorithms in which clinical experience is based. This study introduces a new dose quantity, the dose-to-reference-like medium, to overcome the aforementioned shortcomings. It is linked to a reference medium, water in this study (Dw,m*), and defined as the absorbed dose in a voxel of this reference medium surrounded by a reference-like medium with the same radiation transport characteristics as the original one. We propose to derive Dw,m* distributions by post-processing Dw,m or Dm,m applying a correction factor (CF) to each voxel which depends on its composition. We present and justify a simple and straightforward method to obtain CFs that only involves two phantoms with the same density: one with the considered composition and the other with that of the reference medium. A proof of concept was performed in a clinical environment for Acuros XB (AXB) advanced algorithm and 6 MV photon beams. The CFs were derived for the tissues characterised in Acuros. Dw,m* was compared to Dw,m, Dm,m, and Dw,w from AAA analytical algorithm for some virtual and clinical cases. All the previous quantities presented limitations that can be solved by Dw,m*. This new quantity allows the applicability of evaluation parameters, traceability to clinical experience, and isolation of heterogeneity effects to identify optimum plans, offering useful characteristics for plan evaluation and optimisation in clinical practice. Additionally, it also has potential applications in automated treatment planning and multi-centre activities such as clinical trials, audits, benchmarking, and shared models for automation.