Adapting automated treatment planning configurations across international centres for prostate radiotherapy

Dale Roach*, Geert Wortel, Cesar Ochoa, Henrik R. Jensen, Eugene Damen, Philip Vial, Tomas Janssen, Christian Rønn Hansen

*Kontaktforfatter for dette arbejde

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

64 Downloads (Pure)

Resumé

Background and purpose: Automated configurations are increasingly utilised for radiotherapy treatment planning. This study investigates whether automated treatment planning configurations are adaptable across clinics with different treatment planning protocols for prostate radiotherapy. Material and methods: The study comprised three participating centres, each with pre-existing locally developed prostate AutoPlanning configurations using the Pinnacle3® treatment planning system. Using a three-patient training dataset circulated from each centre, centres modified local prostate configurations to generate protocol compliant treatment plans for the other two centres. Each centre applied modified configurations on validation datasets distributed from each centre (10 patients from 3 centres). Plan quality was assessed through DVH analysis and protocol compliance. Results: All treatment plans were clinically acceptable, based off relevant treatment protocol. Automated planning configurations from Centre's A and B recorded 2 and 18 constraint and high priority deviations respectively. Centre C configurations recorded no high priority deviations. Centre A configurations produced treatment plans with superior dose conformity across all patient PTVs (mean = 1.14) compared with Centre's B and C (mean = 1.24 and 1.22). Dose homogeneity was consistent between all centre's configurations (mean = 0.083, 0.077, and 0.083 respectively). Conclusions: This study demonstrates that automated treatment planning configurations can be shared and implemented across multiple centres with simple adaptations to local protocols.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftPhysics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology
Vol/bind10
Sider (fra-til)7-13
ISSN2405-6316
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 1. apr. 2019

Fingeraftryk

Prostate
Guideline Adherence
Datasets

Citer dette

@article{77a346258700404d947b96c87619a498,
title = "Adapting automated treatment planning configurations across international centres for prostate radiotherapy",
abstract = "Background and purpose: Automated configurations are increasingly utilised for radiotherapy treatment planning. This study investigates whether automated treatment planning configurations are adaptable across clinics with different treatment planning protocols for prostate radiotherapy. Material and methods: The study comprised three participating centres, each with pre-existing locally developed prostate AutoPlanning configurations using the Pinnacle3{\circledR} treatment planning system. Using a three-patient training dataset circulated from each centre, centres modified local prostate configurations to generate protocol compliant treatment plans for the other two centres. Each centre applied modified configurations on validation datasets distributed from each centre (10 patients from 3 centres). Plan quality was assessed through DVH analysis and protocol compliance. Results: All treatment plans were clinically acceptable, based off relevant treatment protocol. Automated planning configurations from Centre's A and B recorded 2 and 18 constraint and high priority deviations respectively. Centre C configurations recorded no high priority deviations. Centre A configurations produced treatment plans with superior dose conformity across all patient PTVs (mean = 1.14) compared with Centre's B and C (mean = 1.24 and 1.22). Dose homogeneity was consistent between all centre's configurations (mean = 0.083, 0.077, and 0.083 respectively). Conclusions: This study demonstrates that automated treatment planning configurations can be shared and implemented across multiple centres with simple adaptations to local protocols.",
keywords = "Automatic, Multi-centre, Pinnacle, Prostate, Treatment planning, VMAT",
author = "Dale Roach and Geert Wortel and Cesar Ochoa and Jensen, {Henrik R.} and Eugene Damen and Philip Vial and Tomas Janssen and Hansen, {Christian R{\o}nn}",
year = "2019",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.phro.2019.04.007",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "7--13",
journal = "Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology",
issn = "2405-6316",

}

Adapting automated treatment planning configurations across international centres for prostate radiotherapy. / Roach, Dale; Wortel, Geert; Ochoa, Cesar; Jensen, Henrik R.; Damen, Eugene; Vial, Philip; Janssen, Tomas; Hansen, Christian Rønn.

I: Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology, Bind 10, 01.04.2019, s. 7-13.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Adapting automated treatment planning configurations across international centres for prostate radiotherapy

AU - Roach, Dale

AU - Wortel, Geert

AU - Ochoa, Cesar

AU - Jensen, Henrik R.

AU - Damen, Eugene

AU - Vial, Philip

AU - Janssen, Tomas

AU - Hansen, Christian Rønn

PY - 2019/4/1

Y1 - 2019/4/1

N2 - Background and purpose: Automated configurations are increasingly utilised for radiotherapy treatment planning. This study investigates whether automated treatment planning configurations are adaptable across clinics with different treatment planning protocols for prostate radiotherapy. Material and methods: The study comprised three participating centres, each with pre-existing locally developed prostate AutoPlanning configurations using the Pinnacle3® treatment planning system. Using a three-patient training dataset circulated from each centre, centres modified local prostate configurations to generate protocol compliant treatment plans for the other two centres. Each centre applied modified configurations on validation datasets distributed from each centre (10 patients from 3 centres). Plan quality was assessed through DVH analysis and protocol compliance. Results: All treatment plans were clinically acceptable, based off relevant treatment protocol. Automated planning configurations from Centre's A and B recorded 2 and 18 constraint and high priority deviations respectively. Centre C configurations recorded no high priority deviations. Centre A configurations produced treatment plans with superior dose conformity across all patient PTVs (mean = 1.14) compared with Centre's B and C (mean = 1.24 and 1.22). Dose homogeneity was consistent between all centre's configurations (mean = 0.083, 0.077, and 0.083 respectively). Conclusions: This study demonstrates that automated treatment planning configurations can be shared and implemented across multiple centres with simple adaptations to local protocols.

AB - Background and purpose: Automated configurations are increasingly utilised for radiotherapy treatment planning. This study investigates whether automated treatment planning configurations are adaptable across clinics with different treatment planning protocols for prostate radiotherapy. Material and methods: The study comprised three participating centres, each with pre-existing locally developed prostate AutoPlanning configurations using the Pinnacle3® treatment planning system. Using a three-patient training dataset circulated from each centre, centres modified local prostate configurations to generate protocol compliant treatment plans for the other two centres. Each centre applied modified configurations on validation datasets distributed from each centre (10 patients from 3 centres). Plan quality was assessed through DVH analysis and protocol compliance. Results: All treatment plans were clinically acceptable, based off relevant treatment protocol. Automated planning configurations from Centre's A and B recorded 2 and 18 constraint and high priority deviations respectively. Centre C configurations recorded no high priority deviations. Centre A configurations produced treatment plans with superior dose conformity across all patient PTVs (mean = 1.14) compared with Centre's B and C (mean = 1.24 and 1.22). Dose homogeneity was consistent between all centre's configurations (mean = 0.083, 0.077, and 0.083 respectively). Conclusions: This study demonstrates that automated treatment planning configurations can be shared and implemented across multiple centres with simple adaptations to local protocols.

KW - Automatic

KW - Multi-centre

KW - Pinnacle

KW - Prostate

KW - Treatment planning

KW - VMAT

U2 - 10.1016/j.phro.2019.04.007

DO - 10.1016/j.phro.2019.04.007

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:85070217417

VL - 10

SP - 7

EP - 13

JO - Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology

JF - Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology

SN - 2405-6316

ER -