Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Radiation Oncology 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Esophageal Cancer | Research

A hybrid automated treatment planning solution for esophageal cancer

Authors: Chifang Ling, Xu Han, Peng Zhai, Hao Xu, Jiayan Chen, Jiazhou Wang, Weigang Hu

Published in: Radiation Oncology | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

This study aims to investigate a hybrid automated treatment planning (HAP) solution that combines knowledge-based planning (KBP) and script-based planning for esophageal cancer.

Methods

In order to fully investigate the advantages of HAP, three planning strategies were implemented in the present study: HAP, KBP, and full manual planning. Each method was applied to 20 patients. For HAP and KBP, the objective functions for plan optimization were generated from a dose–volume histogram (DVH) estimation model, which was based on 70 esophageal patients. Script-based automated planning was used for HAP, while the regular IMRT inverse planning method was used for KBP. For full manual planning, clinical standards were applied to create the plans. Paired t-tests were performed to compare the differences in dose-volume indices among the three planning methods.

Results

Among the three planning strategies, HAP exhibited the best performance in all dose-volume indices, except for PTV dose homogeneity and lung V5. PTV conformity and spinal cord sparing were significantly improved in HAP (P < 0.001). Compared to KBP, HAP improved all indices, except for lung V5. Furthermore, the OAR sparing and target coverage between HAP and full manual planning were similar. Moreover, HAP had the shortest average planning time (57 min), when compared to KBP (63 min) and full manual planning (118 min).

Conclusion

HAP is an effective planning strategy for obtaining a high quality treatment plan for esophageal cancer.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Chen H, et al. Study for reducing lung dose of upper thoracic esophageal cancer radiotherapy by auto-planning: volumetric-modulated arc therapy vs intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Med Dosim. 2018;43(3):243–50.CrossRef Chen H, et al. Study for reducing lung dose of upper thoracic esophageal cancer radiotherapy by auto-planning: volumetric-modulated arc therapy vs intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Med Dosim. 2018;43(3):243–50.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Zhang Z, et al. Outcomes with esophageal cancer radiation therapy. J Thorac Oncol. 2009;4(7):880–8.CrossRef Zhang Z, et al. Outcomes with esophageal cancer radiation therapy. J Thorac Oncol. 2009;4(7):880–8.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Li X, et al. Dosimetric benefits of automation in the treatment of lower thoracic esophageal cancer: is manual planning still an alternative option? Med Dosim. 2017;42(4):289–95.CrossRef Li X, et al. Dosimetric benefits of automation in the treatment of lower thoracic esophageal cancer: is manual planning still an alternative option? Med Dosim. 2017;42(4):289–95.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Fogliata A, et al. RapidPlan head and neck model: the objectives and possible clinical benefit. Radiat Oncol. 2017;12(1):73.CrossRef Fogliata A, et al. RapidPlan head and neck model: the objectives and possible clinical benefit. Radiat Oncol. 2017;12(1):73.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Vanderstraeten B, et al. Automated instead of manual treatment planning? A plan comparison based on dose-volume statistics and clinical preference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;102(2):443–50.CrossRef Vanderstraeten B, et al. Automated instead of manual treatment planning? A plan comparison based on dose-volume statistics and clinical preference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;102(2):443–50.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Hazell I, et al. Automatic planning of head and neck treatment plans. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016;17(1):272–82.CrossRef Hazell I, et al. Automatic planning of head and neck treatment plans. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016;17(1):272–82.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Fan J, et al. Iterative dataset optimization in automated planning: implementation for breast and rectal cancer radiotherapy. Med Phys. 2017;44(6):2515–31.CrossRef Fan J, et al. Iterative dataset optimization in automated planning: implementation for breast and rectal cancer radiotherapy. Med Phys. 2017;44(6):2515–31.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Chin Snyder K, et al. Development and evaluation of a clinical model for lung cancer patients using stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) within a knowledge-based algorithm for treatment planning. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016;17(6):263–75.CrossRef Chin Snyder K, et al. Development and evaluation of a clinical model for lung cancer patients using stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) within a knowledge-based algorithm for treatment planning. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016;17(6):263–75.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Appenzoller LM, et al. Predicting dose-volume histograms for organs-at-risk in IMRT planning. Med Phys. 2012;39(12):7446–61.CrossRef Appenzoller LM, et al. Predicting dose-volume histograms for organs-at-risk in IMRT planning. Med Phys. 2012;39(12):7446–61.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Cotrutz C, Xing L. IMRT dose shaping with regionally variable penalty scheme. Med Phys. 2003;30(4):544–51.CrossRef Cotrutz C, Xing L. IMRT dose shaping with regionally variable penalty scheme. Med Phys. 2003;30(4):544–51.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Xhaferllari I, et al. Automated IMRT planning with regional optimization using planning scripts. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013;14(1):176–91.CrossRef Xhaferllari I, et al. Automated IMRT planning with regional optimization using planning scripts. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013;14(1):176–91.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Kusters JMAM, et al. Automated IMRT planning in pinnacle. Strahlenther Onkol. 2017;193(12):1031–8.CrossRef Kusters JMAM, et al. Automated IMRT planning in pinnacle. Strahlenther Onkol. 2017;193(12):1031–8.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Ouyang Z, et al. Evaluation of auto-planning in IMRT and VMAT for head and neck cancer. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019;20(7):39–47.PubMedPubMedCentral Ouyang Z, et al. Evaluation of auto-planning in IMRT and VMAT for head and neck cancer. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019;20(7):39–47.PubMedPubMedCentral
14.
go back to reference Palma DA, et al. Predicting radiation pneumonitis after chemoradiation therapy for lung cancer: an international individual patient data meta-analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85(2):444–50.CrossRef Palma DA, et al. Predicting radiation pneumonitis after chemoradiation therapy for lung cancer: an international individual patient data meta-analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85(2):444–50.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Chun SG, et al. Impact of intensity-modulated radiation therapy technique for locally advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: a secondary analysis of the NRG oncology RTOG 0617 randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol. 2016;35(1):56–62.CrossRef Chun SG, et al. Impact of intensity-modulated radiation therapy technique for locally advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: a secondary analysis of the NRG oncology RTOG 0617 randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol. 2016;35(1):56–62.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
A hybrid automated treatment planning solution for esophageal cancer
Authors
Chifang Ling
Xu Han
Peng Zhai
Hao Xu
Jiayan Chen
Jiazhou Wang
Weigang Hu
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Radiation Oncology / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1748-717X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-019-1443-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Radiation Oncology 1/2019 Go to the issue