TY - JOUR
T1 - Clinical Acceptability of Automated Radiation Treatment Planning for Head and Neck Cancer Using the Radiation Planning Assistant
AU - Olanrewaju, Adenike
AU - Court, Laurence E.
AU - Zhang, Lifei
AU - Naidoo, Komeela
AU - Burger, Hester
AU - Dalvie, Sameera
AU - Wetter, Julie
AU - Parkes, Jeannette
AU - Trauernicht, Christoph J.
AU - McCarroll, Rachel E.
AU - Cardenas, Carlos
AU - Peterson, Christine B.
AU - Benson, Kathryn R.K.
AU - du Toit, Monique
AU - van Reenen, Ricus
AU - Beadle, Beth M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 American Society for Radiation Oncology
PY - 2021/5/1
Y1 - 2021/5/1
N2 - Purpose: Radiation treatment planning for head and neck cancer is a complex process with much variability; automated treatment planning is a promising option to improve plan quality and efficiency. This study compared radiation plans generated from a fully automated radiation treatment planning system to plans generated manually that had been clinically approved and delivered. Methods and Materials: The study cohort consisted of 50 patients treated by a specialized head and neck cancer team at a tertiary care center. An automated radiation treatment planning system, the Radiation Planning Assistant, was used to create autoplans for all patients using their original, approved contours. Common dose-volume histogram (DVH) criteria were used to compare the quality of autoplans to the clinical plans. Fourteen radiation oncologists, each from a different institution, then reviewed and compared the autoplans and clinical plans in a blinded fashion. Results: Autoplans and clinical plans were very similar with regard to DVH metrics for coverage and critical structure constraints. Physician reviewers found both the clinical plans and autoplans acceptable for use; overall, 78% of the clinical plans and 88% of the autoplans were found to be usable as is (without any edits). When asked to choose which plan would be preferred for approval, 27% of physician reviewers selected the clinical plan, 47% selected the autoplan, 25% said both were equivalent, and 0% said neither. Hence, overall, 72% of physician reviewers believed the autoplan or either the clinical or autoplan was preferable. Conclusions: Automated radiation treatment planning creates consistent, clinically acceptable treatment plans that meet DVH criteria and are found to be appropriate on physician review.
AB - Purpose: Radiation treatment planning for head and neck cancer is a complex process with much variability; automated treatment planning is a promising option to improve plan quality and efficiency. This study compared radiation plans generated from a fully automated radiation treatment planning system to plans generated manually that had been clinically approved and delivered. Methods and Materials: The study cohort consisted of 50 patients treated by a specialized head and neck cancer team at a tertiary care center. An automated radiation treatment planning system, the Radiation Planning Assistant, was used to create autoplans for all patients using their original, approved contours. Common dose-volume histogram (DVH) criteria were used to compare the quality of autoplans to the clinical plans. Fourteen radiation oncologists, each from a different institution, then reviewed and compared the autoplans and clinical plans in a blinded fashion. Results: Autoplans and clinical plans were very similar with regard to DVH metrics for coverage and critical structure constraints. Physician reviewers found both the clinical plans and autoplans acceptable for use; overall, 78% of the clinical plans and 88% of the autoplans were found to be usable as is (without any edits). When asked to choose which plan would be preferred for approval, 27% of physician reviewers selected the clinical plan, 47% selected the autoplan, 25% said both were equivalent, and 0% said neither. Hence, overall, 72% of physician reviewers believed the autoplan or either the clinical or autoplan was preferable. Conclusions: Automated radiation treatment planning creates consistent, clinically acceptable treatment plans that meet DVH criteria and are found to be appropriate on physician review.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85103090252&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85103090252&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.prro.2020.12.003
DO - 10.1016/j.prro.2020.12.003
M3 - Article
C2 - 33640315
AN - SCOPUS:85103090252
SN - 1879-8500
VL - 11
SP - 177
EP - 184
JO - Practical radiation oncology
JF - Practical radiation oncology
IS - 3
ER -