Autoplanning in the setting of stereotactic body radiation therapy for lung cancer.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Erminia Infusino, Anna Ianiro, Marco D'Andrea, Stefania Zara, Valeria Landoni, Francesco Dionisi, Francesca Sperati, Francesco Quagliani, Antonella Soriani, Christian Fiandra
{"title":"Autoplanning in the setting of stereotactic body radiation therapy for lung cancer.","authors":"Erminia Infusino, Anna Ianiro, Marco D'Andrea, Stefania Zara, Valeria Landoni, Francesco Dionisi, Francesca Sperati, Francesco Quagliani, Antonella Soriani, Christian Fiandra","doi":"10.1016/j.ejmp.2025.104902","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Automatic planning (AP) has been compared to manual planning (MP) in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to validate the former and to implement it in clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A new developing Guided Planning System (GPS) engine was used to reoptimize 20 lung SBRT plans with the RayStation™ treatment planning system (TPS). The original manual plans were optimized to deliver 60 Gy in 5 or 8 fractions to the target with constraints on organs at risk (OARs) based on an internal protocol. AP plans were compared to MP based on (i) planning target volume (PTV) and OARs dosimetric evaluation, (ii) clinician's blind plan comparison, (iii) Plan QA results, and (iv) plan quality metrics. Differences between continuous variables were explored through the Mann-Whitney test (p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Target and OARs dosimetry showed no significant difference, with the only exception of the spinal cord maximum dose that was significantly lower for AP in the 5 fractions scheme (MP: 8.93 Gy ± 3.94 Gy vs AP: 6.45 Gy ± 2.72 Gy, p = 0.034). In the blind comparison, AP was preferred in 45 % of cases while MP in 35 % of cases (no preference was expressed in 20 % of cases). A trend towards lower monitor units (MUs) was found for AP in the 5 fractions scheme (MP: 3383 ± 943 vs AP: 2662 ± 588, p = 0.059). No significant difference was found in any of the plan quality metrics.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>AP plans were not inferior to MP plans; therefore, GPS is ready for clinical use in a pulmonary SBRT setting, reducing the planning workload and harmonizing the planning procedure.</p>","PeriodicalId":56092,"journal":{"name":"Physica Medica-European Journal of Medical Physics","volume":"130 ","pages":"104902"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physica Medica-European Journal of Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2025.104902","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Automatic planning (AP) has been compared to manual planning (MP) in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to validate the former and to implement it in clinical practice.

Methods: A new developing Guided Planning System (GPS) engine was used to reoptimize 20 lung SBRT plans with the RayStation™ treatment planning system (TPS). The original manual plans were optimized to deliver 60 Gy in 5 or 8 fractions to the target with constraints on organs at risk (OARs) based on an internal protocol. AP plans were compared to MP based on (i) planning target volume (PTV) and OARs dosimetric evaluation, (ii) clinician's blind plan comparison, (iii) Plan QA results, and (iv) plan quality metrics. Differences between continuous variables were explored through the Mann-Whitney test (p < 0.05).

Results: Target and OARs dosimetry showed no significant difference, with the only exception of the spinal cord maximum dose that was significantly lower for AP in the 5 fractions scheme (MP: 8.93 Gy ± 3.94 Gy vs AP: 6.45 Gy ± 2.72 Gy, p = 0.034). In the blind comparison, AP was preferred in 45 % of cases while MP in 35 % of cases (no preference was expressed in 20 % of cases). A trend towards lower monitor units (MUs) was found for AP in the 5 fractions scheme (MP: 3383 ± 943 vs AP: 2662 ± 588, p = 0.059). No significant difference was found in any of the plan quality metrics.

Conclusions: AP plans were not inferior to MP plans; therefore, GPS is ready for clinical use in a pulmonary SBRT setting, reducing the planning workload and harmonizing the planning procedure.

自体计划在立体定向放射治疗肺癌中的应用。
目的:将自动计划(AP)与手动计划(MP)在肺立体定向放射治疗(SBRT)中的应用进行比较,验证自动计划(AP)的有效性,并将其应用于临床。方法:采用RayStation™治疗计划系统(TPS),使用一种新型的导航计划系统(GPS)引擎对20个肺SBRT计划进行再优化。最初的手动计划经过优化,根据内部协议,在限制危险器官(OARs)的情况下,以5或8份的方式向目标输送60 Gy。根据(i)计划目标体积(PTV)和OARs剂量学评估,(ii)临床医生的盲法计划比较,(iii)计划QA结果,(iv)计划质量指标对AP计划和MP计划进行比较。通过Mann-Whitney检验探讨连续变量之间的差异(p)结果:靶剂量和OARs剂量测定无显著差异,唯一例外是5组分方案中AP的脊髓最大剂量明显较低(MP: 8.93 Gy±3.94 Gy vs AP: 6.45 Gy±2.72 Gy, p = 0.034)。在盲比较中,45%的病例选择AP, 35%的病例选择MP(20%的病例没有选择)。在五分式方案中,AP有降低监测单位(MUs)的趋势(MP: 3383±943 vs AP: 2662±588,p = 0.059)。在任何计划质量度量中都没有发现显著的差异。结论:AP方案不逊于MP方案;因此,GPS已准备好用于肺部SBRT的临床应用,减少了计划工作量并协调了计划程序。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
14.70%
发文量
493
审稿时长
78 days
期刊介绍: Physica Medica, European Journal of Medical Physics, publishing with Elsevier from 2007, provides an international forum for research and reviews on the following main topics: Medical Imaging Radiation Therapy Radiation Protection Measuring Systems and Signal Processing Education and training in Medical Physics Professional issues in Medical Physics.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信