Radiotherapy and Oncology · 2021 · 33 citations · 38 references
MedicineOncologyRadiation OncologyClinical Decision SupportQuality PlanningTreatment PlanningCancer Treatment PlanningPlan EvaluationPlan OptimizationPlan Quality AssuranceRadiation Treatment PlanningAutomated Treatment PlanningClinical Validation StudiesPareto Optimal SolutionPlan Quality AssessmentPlan ValidationRectal Cancer RadiotherapyTreatment Planning System ValidationValidation Studies
INTRODUCTION: Many approaches for automated treatment planning (autoplanning) have been proposed and investigated. Autoplanning can enhance plan quality compared to 'manual' trial-and-error planning, and decrease routine planning workload. A few approaches have been implemented in commercial treatment planning systems (TPSs). We performed a pre-clinical validation of a new system ('NovelATP') that is based on fully-automated multi-criterial optimization (MCO). The aim of NovelATP is to automatically generate for each patient a single high-quality, Pareto-optimal plan without manual Pareto navigation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Validation was performed by generating VMAT/IMRT plans for conventional treatment of prostate cancer (101 pts), prostate SBRT (20 pts), bilateral head-and-neck cancer (50 pts) and rectal cancer treated at an MR-Linac (23 pts). NovelATP autoplans were compared to plans that were generated with our in-house autoplanning system. In many previous validation studies, the latter system consistently showed enhanced plan quality when compared to manual planning. RESULTS: Dosimetrical differences between NovelATP and benchmark plans were on average small and presumably not clinically relevant, pointing at high NovelATP dosimetric plan quality. MUs were 11-19% higher with NovelATP. NovelATP delivery times were up to 12% longer. Overall, there was a slight disadvantage for NovelATP regarding gamma analyses. Calculation times for NovelATP plans were between 29 and 151 min with no overall differences with the benchmark plans. CONCLUSION: The new autoplanning system was able to produce high-quality plans for four highly different planning protocols/treatment sites with a total of 194 patients investigated.
38
A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions
Daniel A. Low, William B. Harms, Sasa Mutic et al. · Medical Physics · 1998 · 2.9K citations · Full text
Christopher M. Nutting, James P. Morden, Kevin J. Harrington et al. · The Lancet Oncology · 2011 · 1.7K citations · Full text
Stephen G. Chun, Chen Hu, Hak Choy et al. · Journal of Clinical Oncology · 2016 · 748 citations · Full text