IntroductionThe performance and limitations of an atlas-based auto-segmentation software package (ABAS; Elekta Inc.) was evaluated using male pelvic anatomy as the area of interest.MethodsContours from 10 prostate patients were selected to create atlases in ABAS. The contoured regions of interest were created manually to align with published guidelines and included the prostate, bladder, rectum, femoral heads and external patient contour. Twenty-four clinically treated prostate patients were auto-contoured using a randomised selection of two, four, six, eight or ten atlases. The concordance between the manually drawn and computer-generated contours were evaluated statistically using Pearson's product–moment correlation coefficient (r) and clinically in a validated qualitative evaluation. In the latter evaluation, six radiation therapists classified the degree of agreement for each structure using seven clinically appropriate categories.ResultsThe ABAS software generated clinically acceptable contours for the bladder, rectum, femoral heads and external patient contour. For these structures, ABAS-generated volumes were highly correlated with ‘as treated’ volumes, manually drawn; for four atlases, for example, bladder r = 0.988 (P < 0.001), rectum r = 0.739 (P < 0.001) and left femoral head r = 0.560 (P < 0.001). Poorest results were seen for the prostate (r = 0.401, P < 0.05) (four atlases); however this was attributed to the comparison prostate volume being contoured on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) rather than computed tomography (CT) data. For all structures, increasing the number of atlases did not consistently improve accuracy.ConclusionsABAS-generated contours are clinically useful for a range of structures in the male pelvis. Clinically appropriate volumes were created, but editing of some contours was inevitably required. The ideal number of atlases to improve generated automatic contours is yet to be determined.

IntroductionEvidence of variations in bladder filling effecting prostate stability and therefore treatment and side‐effects is well established with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). This study aimed to increase bladder volume reproducibility for prostate radiation therapy by implementing a bladder scanning (BS) protocol that could assist patients' bladder filling at computed tomography (CT) simulation and treatment.MethodsBased on a retrospective review of 524 prostate cancer patients, a bladder volume of 250–350 mL was adopted as ‘ideal’ for achieving planning dose constraints. A prospective cohort study was conducted to assess the clinical utility of measuring patients' bladder volumes at CT simulation using an ultrasound bladder scanner (Verathon 9400 BladderScan®). A revised bladder preparation protocol was utilised by a bladder scan group (BS) and a non‐BS group followed the standard departmental bladder preparation protocol. Time and volume data for the BS group (n = 17) were compared with the non‐BS group (n = 17).ResultsThe BS cohort had a CT bladder volume range of 221–588 mL; mean 379 mL, SD 125 mL. The non‐BS group had a larger range: 184–757 mL; mean 373 mL, SD 160 mL (P = 0.9171). There was a positive correlation between CT volume and BS volume in the BS group (r = 0.797; P = 0.0002) although BS volumes were smaller: range 160–420 mL; mean 251 mL; SD 91 mL; P < 0.0001). The maximum bladder volume receiving 50 Gy (V50) from the BS group was 46.4%, mean 24.5%. The maximum bladder V50 from the non‐BS group was 50.9%, mean 27.3% (P = 0.5178). Treatment data from weekly cone beam CT scans were also compared over 6 weeks. They were assessed as being a pass if bladder and bowel requirements were acceptable. The BS group proceeded to treatment on the basis of a pass 92.7% of the time, whereas the pass rate for non‐BS group was 75%; difference 17.7% (P < 0.0001).ConclusionThe BS is a useful tool for achieving consistent, appropriately sized bladder volumes in prostate cancer patients.

We report on our implementation of PPRT which takes into account nationally adopted guidelines, with a margin reduction supported by use of daily image guidance. Non-IMRT OAR constraints were met in most cases. IMRT-specific constraints were less often achieved despite margin reductions, suggesting the need for review of guidelines. Severe toxicity was rare, and most patients did not experience deterioration in urinary or bowel function attributable to radiotherapy.

The radiotherapy plan analysis software was useful for evaluating a class solution for prostate IMRT planning and provided evidence that the class solution produced clinically acceptable plans for these patients.

Aim: To assess a class solution template for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for prostate cancer using plan analysis software.Background: VMAT is a development of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with potential advantages for the delivery of radiotherapy (RT) in prostate cancer. Class solutions are increasingly used for facilitating RT planning. Plan analysis software provides an objective tool for evaluating class solutions. Materials and methods:The class solution for VMAT was based on the current static field IMRT template. The plans of 77 prostate cancer patients were evaluated using a set of in-house plan quality metrics (scores) (PlanIQ TM , Sun Nuclear Corporation). The metrics compared the class solution for VMAT planning with the IMRT template and the delivered clinical plan (CP). Eight metrics were associated with target coverage and ten with organs-at-risk (OAR). Individual metrics were summed and the combined scores were subjected to nonparametric analysis. The low-dose wash for both static IMRT and VMAT plans were evaluated using 40 Gy and 25 Gy isodose volumes.Results: VMAT plans were of equal or better quality than the IMRT template and CP for target coverage (combined score) and OAR combined score. The 40 Gy isodose volume was marginally higher with VMAT than IMRT (4.9%) but lower than CP (−6.6%)(P = 0.0074).The 25 Gy volume was significantly lower with VMAT than both IMRT (−32.7%) and CP (−34.4%)(P < 0.00001).Conclusions: Automated VMAT planning for prostate cancer is feasible and the plans are equal to or better than the current IMRT class solution and the delivered clinical plan.