Variation in external beam treatment plan quality: An inter-institutional study of planners and planning systems

Even with advanced inverse‐planning techniques, radiation treatment plan optimization remains a very time‐consuming task with great output variability, which prompted the development of more automated approaches. One commercially available technique mimics the actions of experienced human operators to progressively guide the traditional optimization process with automatically created regions of interest and associated dose‐volume objectives. We report on the initial evaluation of this algorithm on 10 challenging cases of locoreginally advanced head and neck cancer. All patients were treated with VMAT to 70 Gy to the gross disease and 56 Gy to the elective bilateral nodes. The results of post‐treatment autoplanning (AP) were compared to the original human‐driven plans (HDP). We used an objective scoring system based on defining a collection of specific dosimetric metrics and corresponding numeric score functions for each. Five AP techniques with different input dose goals were applied to all patients. The best of them averaged the composite score 8% lower than the HDP, across the patient population. The difference in median values was statistically significant at the 95% confidence level (Wilcoxon paired signed‐rank test p=0.027). This result reflects the premium the institution places on dose homogeneity, which was consistently higher with the HDPs. The OAR sparing was consistently better with the APs, the differences reaching statistical significance for the mean doses to the parotid glands (p<0.001) and the inferior pharyngeal constrictor (p=0.016), as well as for the maximum doses to the spinal cord (p=0.018) and brainstem (p=0.040). If one is prepared to accept less stringent dose homogeneity criteria from the RTOG 1016 protocol, nine APs would comply with the protocol, while providing lower OAR doses than the HDPs. Overall, AP is a promising clinical tool, but it could benefit from a better process for shifting the balance between the target dose coverage/homogeneity and OAR sparing.PACS number(s): 87.55.D

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Initial evaluation of automated treatment planning software

Gintz

Latifi

Caudell

et al. 2016

“…Technological advances in radiation treatment delivery have led to increases in plan complexity and increased variability in plan quality 1. Clinically, goal sheets are used routinely to guide IMRT planning in order to ensure that dosimetric constraints of OARs are met whenever possible.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of PlanIQ Feasibility DVH for head and neck treatment planning

Fried

Chera

Das

2017

IntroductionDesigning a radiation plan that optimally delivers both target coverage and normal tissue sparing is challenging. There are limited tools to determine what is dosimetrically achievable and frequently the experience of the planner/physician is relied upon to make these determinations. PlanIQ software provides a tool that uses target and organ at risk (OAR) geometry to indicate the difficulty of achieving different points for organ dose–volume histograms (DVH). We hypothesized that PlanIQ Feasibility DVH may aid planners in reducing dose to OARs.Methods and materialsClinically delivered head and neck treatments (clinical plan) were re‐planned (re‐plan) putting high emphasis on maximally sparing the contralateral parotid gland, contralateral submandibular gland, and larynx while maintaining routine clinical dosimetric objectives. The planner was blinded to the results of the clinically delivered plan as well as the Feasibility DVHs from PlanIQ. The re‐plan treatments were designed using 3‐arc VMAT in Raystation (RaySearch Laboratories, Sweden). The planner was then given the results from the PlanIQ Feasibility DVH analysis and developed an additional plan incorporating this information using 4‐arc VMAT (IQ plan). The DVHs across the three treatment plans were compared with what was deemed “impossible” by PlanIQ's Feasibility DVH (Impossible DVH). The impossible DVH (red) is defined as the DVH generated using the minimal dose that any voxel outside the targets must receive given 100% target coverage.ResultsThe re‐plans performed blinded to PlanIQ Feasibilty DVH achieved superior sparing of aforementioned OARs compared to the clinically delivered plans and resulted in discrepancies from the impossible DVHs by an average of 200–700 cGy. Using the PlanIQ Feasibility DVH led to additional OAR sparing compared to both the re‐plans and clinical plans and reduced the discrepancies from the impossible DVHs to an average of approximately 100 cGy. The dose reduction from clinical to re‐plan and re‐plan to IQ plan were significantly different even when taking into account multiple hypothesis testing for both the contralateral parotid and the larynx (P < 0.004 for all comparisons). No significant differences were observed between the three plans for the contralateral parotid when considering multiple hypothesis testing.ConclusionsClinical treatment plans and blinded re‐plans were found to suboptimally spare OARs. PlanIQ could aid planners in generating treatment plans that push the limits of OAR sparing while maintaining routine clinical target coverage goals.

“…This is because the final dose distribution is dependent on the geometry of the organs at risk (OAR) with respect to the target. Other factors that can potentially affect the quality of the final plan are differences in dose prescription,10 treatment technique, and planner experience 11. It is because of these reasons that plan quality evaluation has been based on user experience primarily making the development of quantitative tools necessary.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Creation of knowledge‐based planning models intended for large scale distribution: Minimizing the effect of outlier plans

Aviles

Marcos²,

Sasaki

et al. 2018

Knowledge‐based planning (KBP) can be used to estimate dose–volume histograms (DVHs) of organs at risk (OAR) using models. The task of model creation, however, can result in estimates with differing accuracy; particularly when outlier plans are not properly addressed. This work used RapidPlan™ to create models for the prostate and head and neck intended for large‐scale distribution. Potential outlier plans were identified by means of regression analysis scatter plots, Cook's distance, coefficient of determination, and the chi‐squared test. Outlier plans were identified as falling into three categories: geometric, dosimetric, and over‐fitting outliers. The models were validated by comparing DVHs estimated by the model with those from a separate and independent set of clinical plans. The estimated DVHs were also used as optimization objectives during inverse planning. The analysis tools lead us to identify as many as 7 geometric, 8 dosimetric, and 20 over‐fitting outliers in the raw models. Geometric and over‐fitting outliers were removed while the dosimetric outliers were replaced after re‐planning. Model validation was done by comparing the DVHs at 50%, 85%, and 99% of the maximum dose for each OAR (denoted as V50, V85, and V99) and agreed within −2% to 4% for the three metrics for the final prostate model. In terms of the head and neck model, the estimated DVHs agreed from −2.0% to 5.1% at V50, 0.1% to 7.1% at V85, and 0.1% to 7.6% at V99. The process used to create these models improved the accuracy for the pharyngeal constrictor DVH estimation where one plan was originally over‐estimated by more than twice. In conclusion, our results demonstrate that KBP models should be carefully created since their accuracy could be negatively affected by outlier plans. Outlier plans can be addressed by removing them from the model and re‐planning.