Automated contouring and radiotherapy treatment planning of spine metastases using atlas-based auto-segmentation and knowledge-based planning approaches.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Emma-Louise Jones, Porsher Oppong, Caroline Sisodia, Carolina Napoleone-Filho, Victoria Harris, Christopher Golby, David Eaton, Antony Greener
{"title":"Automated contouring and radiotherapy treatment planning of spine metastases using atlas-based auto-segmentation and knowledge-based planning approaches.","authors":"Emma-Louise Jones, Porsher Oppong, Caroline Sisodia, Carolina Napoleone-Filho, Victoria Harris, Christopher Golby, David Eaton, Antony Greener","doi":"10.1093/bjr/tqaf041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Uncomplicated spine metastases are routinely treated with conventional external beam radiotherapy (cEBRT). In cEBRT, there is no delineation of target volumes or organs at risk (OAR), or attempt to optimise dose distribution to deliver conformal, homogeneous dose distributions with sparing of OAR. Atlas-based auto-segmentation (ABAS) for target volume and OAR delineation, followed by knowledge-based planning (KBP) could facilitate conformal planning of spine metastases.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>ABAS using SmartSegmentation for delineation of thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, and OAR in their vicinity, provided target volumes and OAR for conformal treatment planning. 30 volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans were produced using RapidPlan KBP. Plans produced using this automated approach were compared to the equivalent cEBRT treatment plans.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Target volume coverage for RapidPlan VMAT generated plans was superior to cEBRT. PTV Dmean = 7.86 ± 0.16 Gy, Dmin = 3.46 ± 1.79 Gy, Dmax = 8.56 ± 0.05 Gy for RapidPlan VMAT compared to Dmean = 7.78 ± 0.24 Gy, Dmin = 1.83 ± 1.08 Gy, Dmax = 10.46 ± 0.41 Gy for cEBRT. With homogeneity index and conformity index 0.236 ± 0.215 and 1.201 ± 0.121 respectively for RapidPlan VMAT compared to 0.508 ± 0.137 and 1.789 ± 0.437 for cEBRT. Dose to dose-limiting OAR spinal cord and cauda equina was reduced for RapidPlan VMAT, with Dmax of 7.91 ± 0.16 Gy and 7.94 ± 0.13 Gy respectively compared to 8.67 ± 0.13 Gy and 8.90 ± 0.16 Gy for cEBRT. KBP was superior to cEBRT in terms of target coverage, homogeneity and conformity and was achievable in a clinically acceptable time, with improved sparing of the spinal cord and cauda equina.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Implementation of automated treatment planning for uncomplicated spine metastases is feasible in the clinical environment with superior plan quality compared to cEBRT.</p><p><strong>Advances in knowledge: </strong>Automated contouring and treatment planning are feasible in the clinical environment using this approach and would allow patients conformal as opposed to conventional external beam radiotherapy for treatment of spine metastases.</p>","PeriodicalId":9306,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjr/tqaf041","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Uncomplicated spine metastases are routinely treated with conventional external beam radiotherapy (cEBRT). In cEBRT, there is no delineation of target volumes or organs at risk (OAR), or attempt to optimise dose distribution to deliver conformal, homogeneous dose distributions with sparing of OAR. Atlas-based auto-segmentation (ABAS) for target volume and OAR delineation, followed by knowledge-based planning (KBP) could facilitate conformal planning of spine metastases.

Methods: ABAS using SmartSegmentation for delineation of thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, and OAR in their vicinity, provided target volumes and OAR for conformal treatment planning. 30 volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans were produced using RapidPlan KBP. Plans produced using this automated approach were compared to the equivalent cEBRT treatment plans.

Results: Target volume coverage for RapidPlan VMAT generated plans was superior to cEBRT. PTV Dmean = 7.86 ± 0.16 Gy, Dmin = 3.46 ± 1.79 Gy, Dmax = 8.56 ± 0.05 Gy for RapidPlan VMAT compared to Dmean = 7.78 ± 0.24 Gy, Dmin = 1.83 ± 1.08 Gy, Dmax = 10.46 ± 0.41 Gy for cEBRT. With homogeneity index and conformity index 0.236 ± 0.215 and 1.201 ± 0.121 respectively for RapidPlan VMAT compared to 0.508 ± 0.137 and 1.789 ± 0.437 for cEBRT. Dose to dose-limiting OAR spinal cord and cauda equina was reduced for RapidPlan VMAT, with Dmax of 7.91 ± 0.16 Gy and 7.94 ± 0.13 Gy respectively compared to 8.67 ± 0.13 Gy and 8.90 ± 0.16 Gy for cEBRT. KBP was superior to cEBRT in terms of target coverage, homogeneity and conformity and was achievable in a clinically acceptable time, with improved sparing of the spinal cord and cauda equina.

Conclusions: Implementation of automated treatment planning for uncomplicated spine metastases is feasible in the clinical environment with superior plan quality compared to cEBRT.

Advances in knowledge: Automated contouring and treatment planning are feasible in the clinical environment using this approach and would allow patients conformal as opposed to conventional external beam radiotherapy for treatment of spine metastases.

使用基于图谱的自动分割和基于知识的规划方法的脊柱转移的自动轮廓和放疗治疗计划。
目的:单纯脊柱转移性肿瘤常规采用常规外束放疗(cEBRT)治疗。在cEBRT中,没有描绘靶体积或危险器官(OAR),也没有尝试优化剂量分布,以提供适形、均匀的剂量分布,同时保留OAR。基于图谱的自动分割(ABAS)用于靶体积和OAR描绘,然后是基于知识的规划(KBP),可以促进脊柱转移的适形规划。方法:ABAS采用SmartSegmentation对胸椎和腰椎及其附近的OAR进行圈定,为适形治疗计划提供靶体积和OAR。使用RapidPlan KBP制作了30个体积调节电弧治疗(VMAT)治疗方案。使用这种自动化方法生成的方案与等效的cEBRT治疗方案进行了比较。结果:RapidPlan VMAT生成计划的目标体积覆盖率优于cEBRT。PTV Dmean = 7.86±0.16 Gy, Dmin = 3.46±1.79 Gy,距离= 8.56±0.05 Gy RapidPlan VMAT Dmean = 7.78±0.24 Gy相比,Dmin = 1.83±1.08 Gy,距离cEBRT = 10.46±0.41 Gy。RapidPlan VMAT的均匀性指数和一致性指数分别为0.236±0.215和1.201±0.121,而cEBRT的均匀性指数和一致性指数分别为0.508±0.137和1.789±0.437。RapidPlan VMAT降低了剂量限制性OAR脊髓和马尾的剂量,Dmax分别为7.91±0.16 Gy和7.94±0.13 Gy,而cEBRT的Dmax分别为8.67±0.13 Gy和8.90±0.16 Gy。KBP在靶覆盖、均匀性和一致性方面优于cEBRT,并且在临床可接受的时间内实现,改善了脊髓和马尾的保留。结论:与cEBRT相比,在临床环境下实施无复杂性脊柱转移的自动化治疗计划是可行的,且计划质量优于cEBRT。知识进展:在临床环境中,使用这种方法进行自动轮廓和治疗计划是可行的,并且与传统的外束放疗相比,可以使患者在治疗脊柱转移瘤时符合适形。
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
British Journal of Radiology
British Journal of Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.80%
发文量
330
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: BJR is the international research journal of the British Institute of Radiology and is the oldest scientific journal in the field of radiology and related sciences. Dating back to 1896, BJR’s history is radiology’s history, and the journal has featured some landmark papers such as the first description of Computed Tomography "Computerized transverse axial tomography" by Godfrey Hounsfield in 1973. A valuable historical resource, the complete BJR archive has been digitized from 1896. Quick Facts: - 2015 Impact Factor – 1.840 - Receipt to first decision – average of 6 weeks - Acceptance to online publication – average of 3 weeks - ISSN: 0007-1285 - eISSN: 1748-880X Open Access option
×
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