Multicriteria optimization enables less experienced planners to efficiently produce high quality treatment plans in head and neck cancer radiotherapy

被引:57
作者
Kierkels, Roel G. J. [1 ]
Visser, Ruurd [1 ,2 ]
Bijl, Hendrik P. [1 ]
Langendijk, Johannes A. [1 ]
van 't Veld, Aart A. [1 ]
Steenbakkers, Roel J. H. M. [1 ]
Korevaar, Erik W. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Groningen, Univ Med Ctr Groningen, Dept Radiat Oncol, NL-9700 RB Groningen, Netherlands
[2] Hanze Univ Appl Sci, Dept Med Imaging & Radiat Therapy, Groningen, Netherlands
关键词
Multicriteria optimization; Intensity-modulated radiotherapy; Head and neck cancer; Treatment planning; LOCALIZED PROSTATE-CANCER; IMRT; NAVIGATION; MODELS;
D O I
10.1186/s13014-015-0385-9
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Objectives: To demonstrate that novice dosimetry planners efficiently create clinically acceptable IMRT plans for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients using a commercially available multicriteria optimization (MCO) system. Methods: Twenty HNC patients were enrolled in this in-silico comparative planning study. Per patient, novice planners with less experience in dosimetry planning created an IMRT plan using an MCO system (RayStation). Furthermore, a conventionally planned clinical IMRT plan was available (Pinnacle(3)). All conventional IMRT and MCO-plans were blind-rated by two expert radiation-oncologists in HNC, using a 5-point scale (1-5 with 5 the highest score) assessment form comprising 10 questions. Additionally, plan quality was reported in terms of planning time, dosimetric and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) comparisons. Inter-rater reliability was derived using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: In total, the radiation-oncologists rated 800 items on plan quality. The overall plan score indicated no differences between both planning techniques (conventional IMRT: 3.8 +/- 1.2 vs. MCO: 3.6 +/- 1.1, p = 0.29). The inter-rater reliability of all ratings was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.57-0.71), indicating substantial agreement between the radiation-oncologists. In 93% of cases, the scoring difference of the conventional IMRT and MCO-plans was one point or less. Furthermore, MCO-plans led to slightly higher dose uniformity in the therapeutic planning target volume, to a lower integral body dose (13.9 +/- 4.5 Gy vs. 12.9 +/- 4.0 Gy, p < 0.001), and to reduced dose to the contra-lateral parotid gland (28.1 +/- 11.8 Gy vs. 23.0 +/- 11.2 Gy, p < 0.002). Consequently, NTCP estimates for xerostomia reduced by 8.4 +/- 7.4% (p < 0.003). The hands-on time of the conventional IMRT planning was approximately 205 min. The time to create an MCO-plan was on average 43 +/- 12 min. Conclusions: MCO planning enables novice treatment planners to create high quality IMRT plans for HNC patients. Plans were created with vastly reduced planning times, requiring less resources and a short learning curve.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 18 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], INT J RAD ONCOL BIOL
[2]   IMRT treatment planning -: A comparative inter-system and intor-centre planning exercise of the ESTRO QUASIMODO group [J].
Bohsung, J ;
Gillis, S ;
Arrans, R ;
Bakai, A ;
De Wagter, C ;
Knöös, T ;
Mijnheer, BJ ;
Paiusco, M ;
Perrin, BA ;
Welleweerd, H ;
Williams, P .
RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2005, 76 (03) :354-361
[3]   Predictive modelling for swallowing dysfunction after primary (chemo)radiation: Results of a prospective observational study [J].
Christianen, Miranda E. M. C. ;
Schilstra, Cornelis ;
Beetz, Ivo ;
Muijs, Christina T. ;
Chouvalova, Olga ;
Burlage, Fred R. ;
Doornaert, Patricia ;
Koken, Phil W. ;
Leemans, C. Rene ;
Rinkel, Rico N. P. M. ;
de Bruijn, Marieke J. ;
de Bock, G. H. ;
Roodenburg, Jan L. N. ;
van der Laan, Bernard F. A. M. ;
Slotman, Ben J. ;
Verdonck-de Leeuw, Irma M. ;
Bijl, Hendrik P. ;
Langendijk, Johannes A. .
RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2012, 105 (01) :107-114
[4]   Delineation of organs at risk involved in swallowing for radiotherapy treatment planning [J].
Christianen, Miranda E. M. C. ;
Langendijk, Johannes A. ;
Westerlaan, Henriette E. ;
van de Water, Tara A. ;
Bijl, Hendrik P. .
RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2011, 101 (03) :394-402
[5]   Can all centers plan intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) effectively? An external audit of dosimetric comparisons between three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and IMRT for adjuvant chemoradiation for gastric cancer [J].
Chung, Hans T. ;
Lee, Brian ;
Park, Eileen ;
Lu, Jiade J. ;
Xia, Ping .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2008, 71 (04) :1167-1174
[6]   An approach for practical multiobjective IMRT treatment planning [J].
Craft, David ;
Halabi, Tarek ;
Shih, Helen A. ;
Bortfeld, Thomas .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2007, 69 (05) :1600-1607
[7]   Evidence-based organ-sparing radiotherapy in head and neck cancer [J].
Dirix, Piet ;
Nuyts, Sandra .
LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2010, 11 (01) :85-91
[8]   Deliverable navigation for multicriteria IMRT treatment planning by combining shared and individual apertures [J].
Fredriksson, Albin ;
Bokrantz, Rasmus .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2013, 58 (21) :7683-7697
[9]   Multi-institutional comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy vs. intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head-and-neck cancer: a planning study [J].
Holt, Andrea ;
Van Gestel, Dirk ;
Arends, Mark P. ;
Korevaar, Erik W. ;
Schuring, Danny ;
Kunze-Busch, Martina C. ;
Louwe, Rob J. W. ;
van Vliet-Vroegindeweij, Corine .
RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2013, 8
[10]   A COMPARISON OF DOSE-RESPONSE MODELS FOR THE PAROTID GLAND IN A LARGE GROUP OF HEAD-AND-NECK CANCER PATIENTS [J].
Houweling, Antonetta C. ;
Philippens, Marielle E. P. ;
Dijkema, Tim ;
Roesink, Judith M. ;
Terhaard, Chris H. J. ;
Schilstra, Cornelis ;
Ten Haken, Randall K. ;
Eisbruch, Avraham ;
Raaijmakers, Cornelis P. J. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2010, 76 (04) :1259-1265