Planning comparison of five automated treatment planning solutions for locally advanced head and neck cancer.

Background: Automated treatment planning and/or optimization systems (ATPS) are in the process of broad clinical implementation aiming at reducing inter-planner variability, reducing the planning time allocated for the optimization process and improving plan quality. Five different ATPS used clinica...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Radiation Oncology Vol. 13; no. 1
Autores principales: Krayenbuehl, J., Zamburlini, M., Ghandour, S., Pachoud, M., Lang-Tanadini, S., Tol, J., Guckenberger, M., Verbakel, W. F. A. R., Tanadini-Lang, S
Formato: research Journal Article
Publicado: BioMed Central 9/10/2018
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=131698722&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 131698722
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        1748717X
        38NX
      jtl: Radiation Oncology
      issn: 1748717X
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: 9/10/2018
      vid: 13
      iid: 1
      pid: 24147
      pub: BioMed Central
    artinfo:
      ui:
        131698722
        131698722
        NLM30201017
        131698722
        10.1186/s13014-018-1113-z
        NLM30201017
        131698722
      ppct: 1
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: Planning comparison of five automated treatment planning solutions for locally advanced head and neck cancer.
      aug:
        au:
          Krayenbuehl, J.
          Zamburlini, M.
          Ghandour, S.
          Pachoud, M.
          Lang-Tanadini, S.
          Tol, J.
          Guckenberger, M.
          Verbakel, W. F. A. R.
          Tanadini-Lang, S
        affil: Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, CH-8091, Zurich, Switzerland
      sug:
        subj:
          Radiotherapy, Computer-Assisted Methods
          Head and Neck Neoplasms Radiotherapy
          Human
          Head and Neck Neoplasms Pathology
          Body Regions Radiation Effects
          Radiotherapy, Conformal
          Algorithms
          Radiation Dosage
          Validation Studies
          Comparative Studies
          Evaluation Research
          Multicenter Studies
          Ferrans and Powers Quality of Life Index
          Scales
      ab: Background: Automated treatment planning and/or optimization systems (ATPS) are in the process of broad clinical implementation aiming at reducing inter-planner variability, reducing the planning time allocated for the optimization process and improving plan quality. Five different ATPS used clinically were evaluated for advanced head and neck cancer (HNC).Methods: Three radiation oncology departments compared 5 different ATPS: 1) Automatic Interactive Optimizer (AIO) in combination with RapidArc (in-house developed and Varian Medical Systems); 2) Auto-Planning (AP) (Philips Radiation Oncology Systems); 3) RapidPlan version 13.6 (RP1) with HNC model from University Hospital A (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, USA); 4) RapidPlan version 13.7 (RP2) combined with scripting for automated setup of fields with HNC model from University Hospital B; 5) Raystation multicriteria optimization algorithm version 5 (RS) (Laboratories AB, Stockholm, Sweden). Eight randomly selected HNC cases from institution A and 8 from institution B were used. PTV coverage, mean and maximum dose to the organs at risk and effective planning time were compared. Ranking was done based on 3 Gy increments for the parallel organs.Results: All planning systems achieved the hard dose constraints for the PTVs and serial organs for all patients. Overall, AP achieved the best ranking for the parallel organs followed by RS, AIO, RP2 and RP1. The oral cavity mean dose was the lowest for RS (31.3 ± 17.6 Gy), followed by AP (33.8 ± 17.8 Gy), RP1 (34.1 ± 16.7 Gy), AIO (36.1 ± 16.8 Gy) and RP2 (36.3 ± 16.2 Gy). The submandibular glands mean dose was 33.6 ± 10.8 Gy (AP), 35.2 ± 8.4 Gy (AIO), 35.5 ± 9.3 Gy (RP2), 36.9 ± 7.6 Gy (RS) and 38.2 ± 7.0 Gy (RP1). The average effective planning working time was substantially different between the five ATPS (in minutes): < 2 ± 1 for AIO and RP2, 5 ± 1 for AP, 15 ± 2 for RP1 and 340 ± 48 for RS, respectively.Conclusions: All ATPS were able to achieve all planning DVH constraints and the effective working time was kept bellow 20 min for each ATPS except for RS. For the parallel organs, AP performed the best, although the differences were small.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        research
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N