Plan quality in radiotherapy treatment planning - Review of the factors and challenges

被引:16
作者
Hansen, Christian Ronn [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Hussein, Mohammad [5 ]
Bernchou, Uffe [1 ,2 ]
Zukauskaite, Ruta [2 ,6 ]
Thwaites, David [3 ]
机构
[1] Odense Univ Hosp, Lab Radiat Phys, Odense, Denmark
[2] Univ Southern Denmark, Dept Clin Res, Odense, Denmark
[3] Univ Sydney, Inst Med Phys, Sch Phys, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[4] Aarhus Univ Hosp, Danish Ctr Particle Therapy, Aarhus, Denmark
[5] Metrol Med Phys Ctr, Natl Phys Lab, Teddington, Middx, England
[6] Odense Univ Hosp, Dept Oncol, Odense, Denmark
关键词
dose prescription; plan evaluation; plan quality metrics; radiotherapy; treatment plan quality; BEAM COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY; ONLINE ADAPTIVE RADIOTHERAPY; DOSE CALCULATION ALGORITHMS; BODY RADIATION-THERAPY; NECK-CANCER; ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE; GUIDED RADIOTHERAPY; RADIOMICS ANALYSIS; PREDICT TOXICITY; HEAD;
D O I
10.1111/1754-9485.13374
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
A high-quality treatment plan aims to best achieve the clinical prescription, balancing high target dose to maximise tumour control against sufficiently low organ-at-risk dose for acceptably low toxicity. Treatment planning (TP) includes multiple steps from simulation/imaging and segmentation to technical plan production and reporting. Consistent quality across this process requires close collaboration and communication between clinical and technical experts, to clearly understand clinical requirements and priorities and also practical uncertainties, limitations and compromises. TP quality depends on many aspects, starting from commissioning and quality management of the treatment planning system (TPS), including its measured input data and detailed understanding of TPS models and limitations. It requires rigorous quality assurance of the whole planning process and it links to plan deliverability, assessable by measurement-based verification. This review highlights some factors influencing plan quality, for consideration for optimal plan construction and hence optimal outcomes for each patient. It also indicates some challenges, sources of difference and current developments. The topics considered include: the evolution of TP techniques; dose prescription issues; tools and methods to evaluate plan quality; and some aspects of practical TP. The understanding of what constitutes a high-quality treatment plan continues to evolve with new techniques, delivery methods and related evidence-based science. This review summarises the current position, noting developments in the concept and the need for further robust tools to help achieve it.
引用
收藏
页码:267 / 278
页数:12
相关论文
共 115 条
[1]   Rapid-Learning System for Cancer Care [J].
Abernethy, Amy P. ;
Etheredge, Lynn M. ;
Ganz, Patricia A. ;
Wallace, Paul ;
German, Robert R. ;
Neti, Chalapathy ;
Bach, Peter B. ;
Murphy, Sharon B. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2010, 28 (27) :4268-4274
[2]   A margin-of-the-day online adaptive intensity-modulated radiotherapy strategy for cervical cancer provides superior treatment accuracy compared to clinically recommended margins: A dosimetric evaluation [J].
Ahmad, Rozilawati ;
Bondar, Luiza ;
Voet, Peter ;
Mens, Jan-Willem ;
Quint, Sandra ;
Dhawtal, Glenn ;
Heijmen, Ben ;
Hoogeman, Mischa .
ACTA ONCOLOGICA, 2013, 52 (07) :1430-1436
[3]   A method for a priori estimation of best feasible DVH for organs-at-risk: Validation for head and neck VMAT planning [J].
Ahmed, Saeed ;
Nelms, Benjamin ;
Gintz, Dawn ;
Caudell, Jimmy ;
Zhang, Geoffrey ;
Moros, Eduardo G. ;
Feygelman, Vladimir .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2017, 44 (10) :5486-5497
[4]   COLLAPSED CONE CONVOLUTION OF RADIANT ENERGY FOR PHOTON DOSE CALCULATION IN HETEROGENEOUS MEDIA [J].
AHNESJO, A .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 1989, 16 (04) :577-592
[5]   Unified dosimetry index (UDI): a figure of merit for ranking treatment plans [J].
Akpati, Hilary ;
Kim, ChangSeon ;
Kim, Bong ;
Park, Tae ;
Meek, Allen .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2008, 9 (03) :99-108
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2010, Journal of the ICRU, V10, DOI DOI 10.1093/JICRUNDQ001
[7]   Use of metrics to quantify IMRT and VMAT treatment plan complexity: A systematic review and perspectives [J].
Antoine, Mikael ;
Ralite, Flavien ;
Soustiel, Charles ;
Marsac, Thomas ;
Sargos, Paul ;
Cugny, Audrey ;
Caron, Jerome .
PHYSICA MEDICA-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2019, 64 :98-108
[8]   Radiotherapy dose distribution prediction for breast cancer using deformable image registration [J].
Bai, Xue ;
Wang, Binbing ;
Wang, Shengye ;
Wu, Zhangwen ;
Gou, Chengjun ;
Hou, Qing .
BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING ONLINE, 2020, 19 (01)
[9]   Radiation therapy for breast cancer: Literature review [J].
Balaji, Karunakaran ;
Subramanian, Balaji ;
Yadav, Poonam ;
Radha, Chandrasekaran Anu ;
Ramasubramanian, Velayudham .
MEDICAL DOSIMETRY, 2016, 41 (03) :253-257
[10]   Stereotactic body radiation therapy: The report of AAPM Task Group 101 [J].
Benedict, Stanley H. ;
Yenice, Kamil M. ;
Followill, David ;
Galvin, James M. ;
Hinson, William ;
Kavanagh, Brian ;
Keall, Paul ;
Lovelock, Michael ;
Meeks, Sanford ;
Papiez, Lech ;
Purdie, Thomas ;
Sadagopan, Ramaswamy ;
Schell, Michael C. ;
Salter, Bill ;
Schlesinger, David J. ;
Shiu, Almon S. ;
Solberg, Timothy ;
Song, Danny Y. ;
Stieber, Volker ;
Timmerman, Robert ;
Tome, Wolfgang A. ;
Verellen, Dirk ;
Wang, Lu ;
Yin, Fang-Fang .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2010, 37 (08) :4078-4101