Assessment of Knowledge-Based Planning for Prostate Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy.

IF 2.1 Q3 ONCOLOGY International Journal of Particle Therapy Pub Date : 2021-06-15 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.14338/IJPT-20-00088.1
Yihang Xu, Nellie Brovold, Jonathan Cyriac, Elizabeth Bossart, Kyle Padgett, Michael Butkus, Tejan Diwanj, Adam King, Alan Dal Pra, Matt Abramowitz, Alan Pollack, Nesrin Dogan
{"title":"Assessment of Knowledge-Based Planning for Prostate Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy.","authors":"Yihang Xu,&nbsp;Nellie Brovold,&nbsp;Jonathan Cyriac,&nbsp;Elizabeth Bossart,&nbsp;Kyle Padgett,&nbsp;Michael Butkus,&nbsp;Tejan Diwanj,&nbsp;Adam King,&nbsp;Alan Dal Pra,&nbsp;Matt Abramowitz,&nbsp;Alan Pollack,&nbsp;Nesrin Dogan","doi":"10.14338/IJPT-20-00088.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess the performance of a proton-specific knowledge based planning (KBPP) model in creation of robustly optimized intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans for treatment of patients with prostate cancer.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Forty-five patients with localized prostate cancer, who had previously been treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy, were selected and replanned with robustly optimized IMPT. A KBPP model was generated from the results of 30 of the patients, and the remaining 15 patient results were used for validation. The KBPP model quality and accuracy were evaluated with the model-provided organ-at-risk regression plots and metrics. The KBPP quality was also assessed through comparison of expert and KBPP-generated IMPT plans for target coverage and organ-at-risk sparing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The resulting <i>R</i> <sup>2</sup> (mean ± SD, 0.87 ± 0.07) between dosimetric and geometric features, as well as the χ<sup>2</sup> test (1.17 ± 0.07) between the original and estimated data, showed the model had good quality. All the KBPP plans were clinically acceptable. Compared with the expert plans, the KBPP plans had marginally higher dose-volume indices for the rectum V65Gy (0.8% ± 2.94%), but delivered a lower dose to the bladder (-1.06% ± 2.9% for bladder V65Gy). In addition, KBPP plans achieved lower hotspot (-0.67Gy ± 2.17Gy) and lower integral dose (-0.09Gy ± 0.3Gy) than the expert plans did. Moreover, the KBPP generated better plans that demonstrated slightly greater clinical target volume V95 (0.1% ± 0.68%) and lower homogeneity index (-1.13 ± 2.34).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results demonstrated that robustly optimized IMPT plans created by the KBPP model are of high quality and are comparable to expert plans. Furthermore, the KBPP model can generate more-robust and more-homogenous plans compared with those of expert plans. More studies need to be done for the validation of the proton KBPP model at more-complicated treatment sites.</p>","PeriodicalId":36923,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Particle Therapy","volume":"8 2","pages":"62-72"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8489488/pdf/","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Particle Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14338/IJPT-20-00088.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the performance of a proton-specific knowledge based planning (KBPP) model in creation of robustly optimized intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans for treatment of patients with prostate cancer.

Materials and methods: Forty-five patients with localized prostate cancer, who had previously been treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy, were selected and replanned with robustly optimized IMPT. A KBPP model was generated from the results of 30 of the patients, and the remaining 15 patient results were used for validation. The KBPP model quality and accuracy were evaluated with the model-provided organ-at-risk regression plots and metrics. The KBPP quality was also assessed through comparison of expert and KBPP-generated IMPT plans for target coverage and organ-at-risk sparing.

Results: The resulting R 2 (mean ± SD, 0.87 ± 0.07) between dosimetric and geometric features, as well as the χ2 test (1.17 ± 0.07) between the original and estimated data, showed the model had good quality. All the KBPP plans were clinically acceptable. Compared with the expert plans, the KBPP plans had marginally higher dose-volume indices for the rectum V65Gy (0.8% ± 2.94%), but delivered a lower dose to the bladder (-1.06% ± 2.9% for bladder V65Gy). In addition, KBPP plans achieved lower hotspot (-0.67Gy ± 2.17Gy) and lower integral dose (-0.09Gy ± 0.3Gy) than the expert plans did. Moreover, the KBPP generated better plans that demonstrated slightly greater clinical target volume V95 (0.1% ± 0.68%) and lower homogeneity index (-1.13 ± 2.34).

Conclusions: The results demonstrated that robustly optimized IMPT plans created by the KBPP model are of high quality and are comparable to expert plans. Furthermore, the KBPP model can generate more-robust and more-homogenous plans compared with those of expert plans. More studies need to be done for the validation of the proton KBPP model at more-complicated treatment sites.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
前列腺强度调节质子治疗的知识规划评估。
目的:评估质子特异性知识规划(KBPP)模型在创建稳健优化的强度调节质子治疗(IMPT)计划中的性能,以治疗前列腺癌患者。材料和方法:选择45例局限性前列腺癌患者,既往接受体积调节电弧治疗,并采用优化的IMPT进行重新规划。从其中30例患者的结果中生成KBPP模型,并使用其余15例患者的结果进行验证。利用模型提供的器官风险回归图和指标评估KBPP模型的质量和准确性。通过比较专家和KBPP制定的目标覆盖和器官风险保护IMPT计划,还对KBPP质量进行了评估。结果:所得剂量学特征与几何特征的r2 (mean±SD, 0.87±0.07),原始数据与估计数据的χ2检验(1.17±0.07)表明模型质量较好。所有KBPP方案临床均可接受。与专家方案相比,KBPP方案对直肠V65Gy的剂量-体积指数略高(0.8%±2.94%),但对膀胱的剂量较低(膀胱V65Gy为-1.06%±2.9%)。此外,KBPP方案的热点(-0.67Gy±2.17Gy)和积分剂量(-0.09Gy±0.3Gy)均低于专家方案。此外,KBPP产生了更好的计划,显示出更大的临床靶体积V95(0.1%±0.68%)和更低的均匀性指数(-1.13±2.34)。结论:利用KBPP模型建立的稳健优化的IMPT方案具有较高的质量,可与专家方案相媲美。此外,与专家计划相比,KBPP模型可以生成更健壮、更均匀的计划。需要做更多的研究来验证质子KBPP模型在更复杂的治疗部位的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Particle Therapy
International Journal of Particle Therapy Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.90%
发文量
23
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Carbon-Ion Radiation Therapy in Japan: A Japanese National Registry Study. The Level of Circulating M-MDSCs as an Indicator for the Therapeutic Outcome of BNCT in End-Stage Malignant Brain Tumor Patients. Vaginal Mucosal Melanoma Cell Activation in Response to Photon or Carbon Ion Irradiation. Navigating a New Frontier: Evaluating Leadless Pacemakers in Proton Therapy. Cardiac Conduction System as an OAR in Radiation Therapy: Doses to SA/AV Nodes and Their Reduction.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1