{"title":"Enhancing Estimation Accuracy of Prostate Cancer VMAT Planning: A Knowledge-based Approach Using Multiple Collimator Angles.","authors":"Tatsuya Kamima, Yoshihiro Ueda, Jun-Ichi Fukunaga, Yumiko Shimizu, Yasuo Yoshioka, Hajime Monzen","doi":"10.21873/anticanres.17358","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aim: </strong>This study aimed to determine whether a knowledge-based planning model incorporating treatment plans with multiple collimator angles (Multi-coll. model) provides superior estimation accuracy and plan quality for a range of collimator angles compared with a typical institutional model (Inst. model).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Five institutions using volumetric modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer participated in the study. The Inst. model comprised plans using a fixed collimator angle, whereas the Multi-coll. model registered plans using single arcs and collimator angles of 10°, 30°, 50°, and 70°. The coefficient of determination and mean squared error were calculated, and the estimation accuracy and dosimetric results for three validation cases at each institution were compared for each model. Dosimetric parameters included volumes receiving at least 20%, 50%, and 90% of the prescription dose (V<sub>20</sub>, V<sub>50</sub>, and V<sub>90</sub>, respectively) at each collimator angle.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Multi-coll. model yielded a higher coefficient of determination and lower mean squared error than the Inst. model, although overfitting of data was a concern at two institutions. The mean absolute errors between estimated and calculated values were (Inst. model vs. Multi-coll. model): 4.41% vs. 2.60% (V<sub>20</sub>), 4.03% vs. 2.27% (V<sub>50</sub>), and 2.07% vs. 1.09% (V<sub>90</sub>) for the rectum; 3.48% vs. 3.42% (V<sub>20</sub>), 2.24% vs. 3.65% (V<sub>50</sub>), and 1.11% vs. 0.73% (V<sub>90</sub>) for the bladder. The Multi-coll. model exhibited a lower rectal and vesical V<sub>20</sub> than the Inst.</p><p><strong>Model: </strong></p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Multi-coll. model had a greater estimation accuracy and slightly higher plan quality than the Inst.</p><p><strong>Model: </strong></p>","PeriodicalId":8072,"journal":{"name":"Anticancer research","volume":"44 12","pages":"5303-5312"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anticancer research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.17358","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background/aim: This study aimed to determine whether a knowledge-based planning model incorporating treatment plans with multiple collimator angles (Multi-coll. model) provides superior estimation accuracy and plan quality for a range of collimator angles compared with a typical institutional model (Inst. model).
Materials and methods: Five institutions using volumetric modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer participated in the study. The Inst. model comprised plans using a fixed collimator angle, whereas the Multi-coll. model registered plans using single arcs and collimator angles of 10°, 30°, 50°, and 70°. The coefficient of determination and mean squared error were calculated, and the estimation accuracy and dosimetric results for three validation cases at each institution were compared for each model. Dosimetric parameters included volumes receiving at least 20%, 50%, and 90% of the prescription dose (V20, V50, and V90, respectively) at each collimator angle.
Results: The Multi-coll. model yielded a higher coefficient of determination and lower mean squared error than the Inst. model, although overfitting of data was a concern at two institutions. The mean absolute errors between estimated and calculated values were (Inst. model vs. Multi-coll. model): 4.41% vs. 2.60% (V20), 4.03% vs. 2.27% (V50), and 2.07% vs. 1.09% (V90) for the rectum; 3.48% vs. 3.42% (V20), 2.24% vs. 3.65% (V50), and 1.11% vs. 0.73% (V90) for the bladder. The Multi-coll. model exhibited a lower rectal and vesical V20 than the Inst.
Model:
Conclusion: The Multi-coll. model had a greater estimation accuracy and slightly higher plan quality than the Inst.
背景/目的：本研究旨在确定基于知识的规划模型是否包含多个准直角度（Multi-coll）的治疗方案。模型)与典型的机构模型（Inst.模型）相比，在准直器角度范围内提供了更高的估计精度和计划质量。材料与方法：五家采用体积调节电弧治疗前列腺癌的机构参与了本研究。Inst.模型包含使用固定准直角度的平面图，而Multi-coll.模型包含使用固定准直角度的平面图。模型注册计划使用单一弧线和准直角10°，30°，50°和70°。计算了决定系数和均方误差，并对每个模型在每个机构的三个验证案例的估计精度和剂量学结果进行了比较。剂量学参数包括在每个准直角处接受至少20%、50%和90%处方剂量（分别为V20、V50和V90）的体积。结果：该方法具有良好的临床疗效。模型产生了比inst模型更高的决定系数和更低的均方误差，尽管在两个机构中存在数据过拟合的问题。估计值与计算值之间的平均绝对误差为（Inst. model vs. Multi-coll）。模型):4.41% vs. 2.60% (V20), 4.03% vs. 2.27% (V50), 2.07% vs. 1.09% (V90)；膀胱：3.48% vs. 3.42% (V20), 2.24% vs. 3.65% (V50), 1.11% vs. 0.73% （V90）。Multi-coll。模型的直肠和膀胱V20均低于inst模型。模型比inst模型具有更高的估计精度和略高的计划质量：
期刊介绍：
ANTICANCER RESEARCH is an independent international peer-reviewed journal devoted to the rapid publication of high quality original articles and reviews on all aspects of experimental and clinical oncology. Prompt evaluation of all submitted articles in confidence and rapid publication within 1-2 months of acceptance are guaranteed.
ANTICANCER RESEARCH was established in 1981 and is published monthly (bimonthly until the end of 2008). Each annual volume contains twelve issues and index. Each issue may be divided into three parts (A: Reviews, B: Experimental studies, and C: Clinical and Epidemiological studies).
Special issues, presenting the proceedings of meetings or groups of papers on topics of significant progress, will also be included in each volume. There is no limitation to the number of pages per issue.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
