Medical Dosimetry最新文献

{"title":"Impact of bowel preparation compliance on interfractional rectal diameter variation during prostate cancer radiotherapy","authors":"Tooba Ali MBBS ,&nbsp;Aahan Arif MBBS ,&nbsp;Muhammad Umer MS ,&nbsp;Ahmed Nadeem Abbasi RCSI ,&nbsp;Nasir Ali FCPS ,&nbsp;Mariam Hina MBBS ,&nbsp;Laraib Khan MBBS ,&nbsp;Maham Khan MBBS ,&nbsp;Asad Yousuf MS ,&nbsp;Asim Hafiz FCPS ,&nbsp;Maria Tariq FCPS ,&nbsp;Bilal Mazhar Qureshi FCPS, MS","doi":"10.1016/j.meddos.2025.09.008","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.meddos.2025.09.008","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Radiation therapy, a mainstay of management for prostate cancer, may lead to variations in rectal volume and subsequent toxicities. This study examines the role of bowel preparation compliance and Milk of Magnesia (MoM), on rectal diameter, toxicities, and volume variations during image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT). Through this, we aim to enhance treatment precision and reduce rectal toxicity, improving patient outcomes in pelvic irradiation. This prospective observational study, conducted at the Aga Khan University between July 2024 and December 2024, included prostate cancer patients receiving pelvic radiotherapy. Patients underwent a standardized bowel preparation protocol involving an antiflatulence diet and Milk of Magnesia (MoM) in an attempt to reduce rectal volume and toxicity, with bladder preparation requiring 500 mL of water intake 30 minutes before scans. Daily cone beam CT (CBCT) images ensured accurate target coverage, and rectal parameters were monitored throughout treatment. Data on patient compliance, rectal volume, interfractional motion, and toxicity were collected using the Adaptive Radiotherapy Integrated Algorithm (ARIA) system and self-designed questionnaires, with statistical analyses, including mixed-model logistic regression, assessing the relationship between various factors and treatment-related toxicity, defined as significant at <em>p</em> &lt; 0.05. A total of 145 scans involving 7 prostate cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy were analyzed, with a mean patient age of 63.9 years and mean diagnostic serum PSA levels of 27.0 ng/ml. Most patients had a Gleason score of 5 and were treated primarily with Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT), receiving a radiation dose of 7800 cGy over 39 fractions. Compliance with bowel preparation protocols and Milk of Magnesia (MoM) was suboptimal (25.5%). Statistical analysis revealed a significant association between MoM compliance and reduced rectal toxicity, while dietary compliance, although beneficial, did not achieve significance in multivariable models. The mean rectal dose during treatment increased significantly, while individual variations in rectal diameter and volume were observed. This study emphasizes the importance of strict adherence to bowel preparation protocols and MoM in mitigating rectal toxicity and improving patient outcomes in pelvic irradiation for prostate cancer.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49837,"journal":{"name":"Medical Dosimetry","volume":"51 1","pages":"Pages 136-144"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145423239","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Evaluation of two treatment planning systems for single isocenter multiple metastases stereotactic radiosurgery treatment planning and delivery","authors":"Christopher J. Tichacek Ph.D.,&nbsp;Daniel Opp Ph.D.,&nbsp;William Johansson M.A.,&nbsp;Bruce Libby Ph.D.,&nbsp;Geoffrey Zhang Ph.D.,&nbsp;Ibrahim Oraiqat Ph.D.,&nbsp;Gage Redler Ph.D.,&nbsp;Louis Nardella M.S.,&nbsp;Stuart Wasserman Ph.D.,&nbsp;Daniel E. Oliver M.D.,&nbsp;Hsiang-Hsuan Michael Yu M.D.,&nbsp;Jasmine A. Graham Ph.D.","doi":"10.1016/j.meddos.2025.07.003","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.meddos.2025.07.003","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Plan quality and low dose spillage, in the context of single isocenter treatment of multiple metastases, are evaluated for two commercially available treatment planning systems (TPSs): Brainlab Elements Multiple Mets Software v.3.0 and v.4.0 (MBM) and RayStation v.11A (RS) representing a TPS specialized for this application and a more generalized TPS, respectively. Twenty-one patients, originally planned for treatment with MBM, were selected for analysis with 66 (2 to 5 per patient) total lesions with average of 3.1 lesions per isocenter. Organs-at-risk were auto-contoured in Brainlab MBM and reviewed by physicist or physician prior to treatment planning. Gross tumor volumes (GTVs) and planning target volumes (PTVs) were contoured in MBM. All structures, CT, MRI, and registration files were exported to RS. Structures were resampled upon export. Treatment plans were developed in RS. Plans in MBM used dynamic conformal arcs (DCA) and RS plans utilized VMAT, both implementing non-coplanar trajectories. Plan evaluation metrics include planning target volume (PTV) coverage (D98 %), conformity index (CI), gradient index (GI) normal brain V12Gy (cc) and V4Gy (cc). PTV D98 % coverage was comparable between MBM and RS plans demonstrating an average difference of 0.87 Gy (± 1.07 Gy) (with RS having higher average D98 %). The greatest difference between MBM and RS was the dose to the normal brain. Normal brain V12Gy was on average 4.54cc (± 3.02cc) vs 5.47cc (± 3.00cc) and V4Gy was 33.23cc (± 22.08cc) vs 43.35cc (± 26.24cc) for MBM vs RS, respectively. The conformity index (CI) improved in MBM vs RS (1.20 vs 1.56 average). MBM dynamic conformal arcs (DCA) and RS VMAT approaches produce comparable plans, however we found MBM treatment plans to be superior due to better target conformality and subsequent lower normal brain V12Gy and V4Gy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49837,"journal":{"name":"Medical Dosimetry","volume":"51 1","pages":"Pages 41-45"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144849484","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Custom knowledge-based planning method to escalate tumor dose for stereotactic recurrent head and neck cancer with HyperArc delivery","authors":"Shane McCarthy Ph.D.,&nbsp;William St. Clair M.D., Ph.D.,&nbsp;Eddy S. Yang M.D., Ph.D.,&nbsp;Damodar Pokhrel Ph.D., D.A.B.R.","doi":"10.1016/j.meddos.2025.07.005","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.meddos.2025.07.005","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Demonstrating the feasibility of dose escalation for stereotactic recurrent head and neck (RHN) cancers with a HyperArc-based RapidPlan (HARP) model using custom Simultaneous Integrated Boost Injector (SIBI) through Eclipse Scripting API (ESAPI) to facilitate automated treatment planning. Five previously treated RHN patients prescribed 30 to 35 Gy in 3 or 5 fractions, four single-lesion and one two-lesion, were retrospectively replanned with HyperArc geometry on a TrueBeam LINAC (6MV-FFF) using a HARP model with SIBI to escalate tumor dose. Escalation was achieved through the GTV and a central hotspot optimization structure being pushed toward 130% and 140% the prescription dose, respectively. To accommodate this escalation, PTV coverage objectives were lessened. After dose calculation using AcurosXB, the stereotactic plan was normalized to the original plan’s PTV <em>D</em>_95%. On average, the mean dose to the PTVs and GTVs received an 11.5% ± 5.1% and 25.0% ± 8.7% increase. Maximum GTV dose increased by 39.5% ± 10.2% and GTV <em>D</em>_99.9% increased by 16.4% ± 5.4%. Maximum dose to organs-at-risk (OARs) showed notable decreases for larynx (8.6 Gy), oral cavity (11.4 Gy), spinal cord (12.6 Gy), and parotids (11.4 Gy) for specific cases. Skin and brainstem saw maximum increases of 4.9 Gy and 3.4 Gy, respectively. Carotid artery dose was respected for all RHN plans, including plans with target overlap. All SIB plans were calculated automatically without user intervention in under 15 minutes on average. Patient-specific quality assurance results were clinically acceptable for RHN stereotactic radiotherapy delivery. Achieving an escalated stereotactic RHN dose without compromising nearby OARs has the potential to improve clinical outcomes through a possible increase in tumor local control while maintaining acceptable doses to OARs. Furthermore, the involvement of HyperArc, RapidPlan, and ESAPI allows for a standardized and streamlined clinical workflow, enabling resource-strained centers to deliver high-quality stereotactic RHN treatments without requiring extensive experience or time for manual planning.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49837,"journal":{"name":"Medical Dosimetry","volume":"51 1","pages":"Pages 52-56"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144790560","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Treatment plan selection in whole left breast radiotherapy using multi-criteria decision-making methods: A phantom study","authors":"Ceren Ayrancıoğlu M.Sc. ,&nbsp;Oğuzhan Ayrancıoğlu Ph.D. ,&nbsp;İlknur Bilkay Görken M.D.","doi":"10.1016/j.meddos.2025.09.001","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.meddos.2025.09.001","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Radiotherapy (RT) treatment planning requires the evaluation of multiple, often conflicting dosimetric and clinical parameters. Traditional tools such as dose-volume histograms and isodose maps continue to play a valuable role in clinical evaluation; however, these tools do not support the comparison of complex datasets. Therefore, evaluating the planning parameters may exceed the cognitive capacity of clinicians to interpret the information effectively. This study proposes a structured multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) framework to facilitate objective and systematic selection of optimal RT treatment plans, enhancing the consistency of clinical evaluations. Whole left breast RT plans were generated using 3 external RT modalities – 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy Field-in-Field, Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy, and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy. Nine plans – 3 per modality, reflecting varying clinical quality levels: good, moderate and poor – were accomplished using an anthropomorphic female phantom. Evaluation criteria encompassed target volume dose-volume parameters, treatment plan parameters and organ-at-risk constraints. Objective weights were assigned using the CRITIC method. Five MCDM techniques were employed to rank the plans, and the results were aggregated using arithmetic mean and the COPELAND method. The rankings compared with a clinically derived reference ranking. COPRAS, ARAS, TOPSIS, and WASPAS showed strong agreement with the reference ranking, while GRA produced less consistent results. This study effectively demonstrates the feasibility of employing MCDM methods to provide a systematic, reliable, and data-driven framework for the selection of optimal radiotherapy treatment plans. The software developed for this purpose, designed to work with the Varian Eclipse Treatment Planning System, has the potential to support clinical decision-making by offering objective plan comparisons. Future studies should extend this approach by incorporating actual patient data instead of an anthropomorphic phantom, as well as by including different anatomical treatment sites to enhance clinical applicability and generalizability.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49837,"journal":{"name":"Medical Dosimetry","volume":"51 1","pages":"Pages 91-102"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145410640","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Regional nodal irradiation in breast cancer patients: A treatment planning study of the breast cancer working group of the German society of radiation oncology","authors":"Marciana Nona Duma M.D. ,&nbsp;Kai Borm M.D. ,&nbsp;Thomas Hehr M.D. ,&nbsp;Marc D. Piroth M.D. ,&nbsp;Fastner Gerd M.D. ,&nbsp;René Baumann M.D. ,&nbsp;Stephanie E. Combs M.D. ,&nbsp;Stefanie Corradini M.D. ,&nbsp;Jürgen Dunst M.D. ,&nbsp;David Krug M.D. ,&nbsp;Juliane Hörner-Rieber M.D. ,&nbsp;Christiane Matuschek M.D. ,&nbsp;Leonard Christopher Schmeel M.D. ,&nbsp;Rainer Fietkau M.D. ,&nbsp;Vratislav Strnad M.D. ,&nbsp;Wilfried Budach M.D.","doi":"10.1016/j.meddos.2025.09.006","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.meddos.2025.09.006","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The aim of the study was to analyze the interinstitutional differences in the planning process/approach of regional nodal irradiation (RNI) in breast cancer patients in expert centres. Based on a predefined risk constellation, the left breast and the axillary, periclavicular and internal mammarian lymph node areas had to be irradiated. The study focused on left-sided RNI. One CT dataset (free breathing) each of a regular (R) adipose (A) and a slender patient (S) were centrally selected and all target volumes (CTV: level II, III, IV + internal mammary artery chain region-IMC, left breast, PTV and OARs) were contoured according to the ESTRO recommendations. A total dose of 50.4/1.8 Gy was set as the dosage with free choice of technique/inclinic constraints. Dose files were analyzed centrally as DICOM files (CTV: D95%, D50%, D1% and V95%; OAR: D1%, Dmean, V20Gy, V30Gy, V40Gy and the absolute V95% of normal tissue outside the PTV). A total of 18 data sets were analyzed. Differences of almost 10 Gy in TV coverage were significant (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.05). This was evident between patients e.g., for CTV_IMC D95%/D50% S:47.1Gy ± 1.9/50.1Gy ± 0.6; R:39.4Gy ± 8.4/47.6Gy ± 4; A:38.3Gy ± 10.4/47.9Gy ± 4.4) and PTV_IMA D95%/D50% (S:37.6Gy ± 3.9/49.7Gy ± 0.8; R:27.9Gy ± 7.8/46.9Gy ± 3.3; A:25.6Gy ± 9.7/47.5Gy ± 2.8). Patient-related dose differences were also significant for OAR`s: Dmean heart (S:4.6Gy ± 1.1; N:6.1Gy ± 1.2; A:7.9Gy ± 2.1), humeral head (S:8.3Gy ± 2.7; N:3.8Gy ± 0.7; A:6.4Gy ± 1.7), and thyroid (S:17.7Gy ± 2.7; N:14.3Gy ± 1.6; A:27.9Gy ± 4.5). Patient anatomical factors and institutional planning differences create significant dosimetric variations in breast cancer radiation therapy, emphasizing the need for personalized planning approaches that incorporate patient-specific constraints and age-dependent risk considerations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49837,"journal":{"name":"Medical Dosimetry","volume":"51 1","pages":"Pages 124-129"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145410654","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Effect of inter-planner variability on knowledge-based treatment planning in moderately hypofractionated prostate cancer","authors":"Yura Sakuka BSc (candidate) ,&nbsp;Motoharu Sasaki PhD ,&nbsp;Yuji Nakaguchi PhD ,&nbsp;Takeshi Kamomae PhD ,&nbsp;Yuto Yamaji BSc ,&nbsp;Kodai Yoshimura BSc ,&nbsp;Chihiro Takahama BSc (candidate) ,&nbsp;Hana Kawabata BSc (candidate) ,&nbsp;Hitoshi Ikushima MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.meddos.2025.08.002","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.meddos.2025.08.002","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study aimed to compare the performance of RapidPlan models developed by different planners and to evaluate the impact of inter-planner variability on treatment plan quality. Three planners with different levels of clinical experience developed RapidPlan models (Models A, B, and C) using the same set of 30 prostate cancer cases. Each planner manually created treatment plans for these cases, referring to PlanIQ for dosimetric guidance. PlanIQ provides estimates of achievable dose sparing for organs-at-risk (OAR) based on computed tomography images and anatomical contours, and was used to guide the planning process. Each model was then used to generate treatment plans (Plans A, B, and C). The models were evaluated using 12 independent cases not included in model training, and plan quality was assessed using dose–volume parameters for the planning target volume excluding the rectum (PTV-Rectum), rectum, and bladder. Plan A yielded better dose uniformity for the PTV-Rectum, as indicated by lower D2% and higher D98%. For the rectum, the mean volume receiving 58 Gy (V58 Gy) was lowest in Plan C, followed by Plans B and A, indicating that Model C provided the most effective dose sparing. Plan A yielded superior dose uniformity for the PTV-Rectum, whereas Plan C more effectively spared OAR. Although no statistically significant differences were observed, the results suggest that planner-related variability can influence model performance. These findings underscore the importance of quality control in model construction and support the feasibility of shared or standardized RapidPlan models, particularly in resource-limited settings.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49837,"journal":{"name":"Medical Dosimetry","volume":"51 1","pages":"Pages 84-90"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145103162","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"New Members List & Corporate Members List, Spring 2026","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.meddos.2026.01.001","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.meddos.2026.01.001","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49837,"journal":{"name":"Medical Dosimetry","volume":"51 1","pages":"Pages 157-158"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146049166","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Influence of non-coplanar arcs in stereotactic ablative radiotherapy of Liver: A clinician’s plan acceptance based comparative analysis between Ring gantry and C- Arm linear accelerators","authors":"Biplab Sarkar Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Anirudh Pradhan Ph.D.","doi":"10.1016/j.meddos.2025.06.004","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.meddos.2025.06.004","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study aims to evaluate the dosimetric compatibility of coplanar-only arc plans from a ring gantry linear accelerator with coplanar and non-coplanar arc-based plans from C-arm linear accelerators for liver stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). Halcyon (HAL) is a ring gantry, while Novalis Tx (NTx) and TrueBeam STx (TB) are C-arm linear accelerators. A total of 40 liver stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) patients, with either primary disease or metastasis, were planned using these three competing linear accelerators. HAL plans used only coplanar arcs, while NTx and TB plans incorporated both coplanar and non-coplanar arcs. All plans were dosimetrically and statistically evaluated using Greenhouse-Geisser statistical analysis (one-way ANOVA) among the three systems (HAL vs NTx vs TB), and paired sample t-tests (HAL vs NTx, HAL vs TB, and NTx vs TB). Both statistical analyses were considered significant at <em>p</em> ≤ 0.05. Target dose coverage to PTVD98 % were 95.4 ± 7.1 %, 95.8 ± 7.7 % and 95.6 ± 7.1 % for HAL, NTx and TB; and all variations were statistically insignificant <em>p</em> = 0.495, 0.333, 0.563 and 0.147. Dosimetric parameters like D15cc Heart (%), D5cc_Duodenum (%), mean dose (Liver-GTV) and liver volume ≤ 1500 cGy shows a statistically significant dose variation for both Anova and t-test. However absolute variation is very less , mean dose difference (liver-GTV) for (HAL-NTx)=37.5 ± 76.5 cGy and (HAL-TB)= 50.5 ± 88.8 cGy. Similarly for liver volume &lt; 1500 cGy (HAL-NTx) and (HAL-TB) were −20.7 ± 39.4 cc and −21.2 ± 40.3 cc which is small compared to mean liver volume of 1293.0 ± 327.4cc. C-arm and ring gantry plans were the definitive choices for 5 (12.5 %) and 2 (5 %) patients, respectively, while the remaining 33 patients were independent of the arc arrangement. All three systems achieved the required dose-volume parameters. Coplanar plans demonstrated no significant disadvantages compared to mixed-arc plans. Although some statistically significant differences were observed, the variations were too small to be clinically relevant.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49837,"journal":{"name":"Medical Dosimetry","volume":"51 1","pages":"Pages 32-40"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144790561","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Comment on “Clinical efficacy of AI in lung SABR planning: A comparative retrospective analysis”","authors":"Amnuay Kleebayoon ,&nbsp;Viroj Wiwanitkit","doi":"10.1016/j.meddos.2025.09.002","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.meddos.2025.09.002","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49837,"journal":{"name":"Medical Dosimetry","volume":"51 1","pages":"Page 8"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145281557","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Clinical efficacy of AI in lung SABR planning: A comparative retrospective analysis","authors":"Kylie Unicomb BAppSci (MRS) ,&nbsp;Shamira Cross M.Sc. ,&nbsp;Sean White B.Sc., M.Sc. ,&nbsp;Kevin Vantilburg Dip App Sci ,&nbsp;Gary Low Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Roland Yeghiaian-Alvandi M.B.B.S.","doi":"10.1016/j.meddos.2025.05.008","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.meddos.2025.05.008","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study evaluated the effectiveness of an integrated Artificial Intelligence (AI) planning tool in a lung stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) planning workflow. The aim was to determine whether the AI planning tool would facilitate the generation of consistent high-quality plans while simultaneously improving treatment plan efficiency. The study compares clinically treated planner derived lung SABR plans with AI-generated. Nineteen cases planned with traditional planner derived techniques which make up the control cohort human, were re-planned using AI to determine the efficiency and quality of AI generated plans. The study derived a set of AI criteria to create the AI cohort of plans, and further refinement with an additional optimization created AI + human cohort. Each plan was assessed using departmental criteria, including time efficiency, to determine plan quality. The best plans, chosen after a blind review by the treating RO, were documented and analyzed to demonstrate the effectiveness of AI assistance in Lung SABR planning. Ethics approval was given for this study at a local health district level. Across 19 patients, the human cohort showed a total of 3.3% criteria unmet, which dropped to 2.6% for AI assisted plans in the AI cohort. The percentage of unmet goals was further reduced to 1.84% after the addition of manual planner input in AI + human cohort. All plans selected by the RO in the blind review were produced using AI + human input, and the average time taken to produce AI assisted plans was 1.08 hours. The study demonstrates that AI, in conjunction with human expertise, significantly enhances the efficiency and quality of lung SABR plans for patients, with quality confirmed through blinded evaluation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49837,"journal":{"name":"Medical Dosimetry","volume":"51 1","pages":"Pages 1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144512644","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}