Planning Automation for Treatment Techniques Comparison and Robustness Analysis: Tangential Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Whole Breast Irradiation

IF 2.2 Q3 ONCOLOGY Advances in Radiation Oncology Pub Date : 2025-03-01 DOI:10.1016/j.adro.2025.101719

Livia Marrazzo MSc , Deborah Chilà MSc , Immacolata Vanore MSc , Roberto Pellegrini MSc , Peter Voet PhD , Vanessa Di Cataldo MD , Icro Meattini MD , Margherita Zani MSc , Chiara Arilli MSc , Silvia Calusi PhD , Marta Casati MSc , Antonella Compagnucci MSc , Cinzia Talamonti PhD , Lorenzo Livi MD , Stefania Pallotta MSc

{"title":"Planning Automation for Treatment Techniques Comparison and Robustness Analysis: Tangential Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Whole Breast Irradiation","authors":"Livia Marrazzo MSc , Deborah Chilà MSc , Immacolata Vanore MSc , Roberto Pellegrini MSc , Peter Voet PhD , Vanessa Di Cataldo MD , Icro Meattini MD , Margherita Zani MSc , Chiara Arilli MSc , Silvia Calusi PhD , Marta Casati MSc , Antonella Compagnucci MSc , Cinzia Talamonti PhD , Lorenzo Livi MD , Stefania Pallotta MSc","doi":"10.1016/j.adro.2025.101719","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>This study evaluates the use of the mCycle automated planning system integrated into the Monaco Treatment Planning System for step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in whole breast irradiation (WBI). The aim was to assess whether automation can standardize plan quality across a diverse patient cohort and compare dosimetric outcomes and robustness of the 2 techniques against setup errors and anatomical variations.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and Materials</h3><div>A total of 65 patients with breast cancer who underwent postoperative WBI were selected for the study. Treatment plans were generated using mCycle, which employs multicriteria optimization with no manual intervention. Two automated planning techniques—IMRT and VMAT—were implemented and evaluated based on dosimetric outcomes, physician review, planning time, and plan robustness. The plan deliverability was verified through γ index and point dose measurements.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The mCycle system produced clinically acceptable plans for both IMRT and VMAT across all patient cohorts. VMAT showed superior target coverage (V95% = 97.9%) and better sparing of ipsilateral organs at risks (OARs), whereas IMRT demonstrated enhanced sparing of contralateral OARs and greater robustness to anatomical changes such as breast swelling. Planning times were reduced with VMAT because of complete automation. Plan deliverability was confirmed with high γ passing rates and acceptable point dose deviations.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The use of mCycle in WBI planning successfully standardized plan quality and improved workflow efficiency. VMAT provided superior target coverage and ipsilateral OAR sparing but was more sensitive to anatomical changes. IMRT showed better contralateral OAR sparing and robustness. Both techniques are viable, with advantages depending on clinical scenarios.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7390,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Radiation Oncology","volume":"10 3","pages":"Article 101719"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452109425000077","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

This study evaluates the use of the mCycle automated planning system integrated into the Monaco Treatment Planning System for step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in whole breast irradiation (WBI). The aim was to assess whether automation can standardize plan quality across a diverse patient cohort and compare dosimetric outcomes and robustness of the 2 techniques against setup errors and anatomical variations.

Methods and Materials

A total of 65 patients with breast cancer who underwent postoperative WBI were selected for the study. Treatment plans were generated using mCycle, which employs multicriteria optimization with no manual intervention. Two automated planning techniques—IMRT and VMAT—were implemented and evaluated based on dosimetric outcomes, physician review, planning time, and plan robustness. The plan deliverability was verified through γ index and point dose measurements.

Results

The mCycle system produced clinically acceptable plans for both IMRT and VMAT across all patient cohorts. VMAT showed superior target coverage (V95% = 97.9%) and better sparing of ipsilateral organs at risks (OARs), whereas IMRT demonstrated enhanced sparing of contralateral OARs and greater robustness to anatomical changes such as breast swelling. Planning times were reduced with VMAT because of complete automation. Plan deliverability was confirmed with high γ passing rates and acceptable point dose deviations.

Conclusions

The use of mCycle in WBI planning successfully standardized plan quality and improved workflow efficiency. VMAT provided superior target coverage and ipsilateral OAR sparing but was more sensitive to anatomical changes. IMRT showed better contralateral OAR sparing and robustness. Both techniques are viable, with advantages depending on clinical scenarios.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Advances in Radiation Oncology Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging

CiteScore

4.60

自引率

4.30%

发文量

208

审稿时长

98 days

期刊介绍： The purpose of Advances is to provide information for clinicians who use radiation therapy by publishing: Clinical trial reports and reanalyses. Basic science original reports. Manuscripts examining health services research, comparative and cost effectiveness research, and systematic reviews. Case reports documenting unusual problems and solutions. High quality multi and single institutional series, as well as other novel retrospective hypothesis generating series. Timely critical reviews on important topics in radiation oncology, such as side effects. Articles reporting the natural history of disease and patterns of failure, particularly as they relate to treatment volume delineation. Articles on safety and quality in radiation therapy. Essays on clinical experience. Articles on practice transformation in radiation oncology, in particular: Aspects of health policy that may impact the future practice of radiation oncology. How information technology, such as data analytics and systems innovations, will change radiation oncology practice. Articles on imaging as they relate to radiation therapy treatment.