Background and purpose: Automatic approaches are widely implemented to automate dose optimization in radiotherapy treatment planning. This study systematically investigates how to configure automatic planning in order to create the best possible plans. Materials and methods: Automatic plans were generated using protocol based automatic iterative optimization. Starting from a simple automation protocol which consisted of the constraints for targets and organs at risk (OAR), the performance of the automatic approach was evaluated in terms of target coverage, OAR sparing, conformity, beam complexity, and plan quality. More complex protocols were systematically explored to improve the quality of the automatic plans. The protocols could be improved by adding a dose goal on the outer 2 mm of the PTV, by setting goals on strategically chosen subparts of OARs, by adding goals for conformity, and by limiting the leaf motion. For prostate plans, development of an automated post-optimization procedure was required to achieve precise control over the dose distribution. Automatic and manually optimized plans were compared for 20 head and neck (H&N), 20 prostate, and 20 rectum cancer patients. Results: Based on simple automation protocols, the automatic optimizer was not always able to generate adequate treatment plans. For the improved final configurations for the three sites, the dose was lower in automatic plans compared to the manual plans in 12 out of 13 considered OARs. In blind tests, the automatic plans were preferred in 80% of cases. Conclusions: With adequate, advanced, protocols the automatic planning approach is able to create high-quality treatment plans.
DOCUMENT
OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate that novice dosimetry planners efficiently create clinically acceptable IMRT plans for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients using a commercially available multicriteria optimization (MCO) system.METHODS: Twenty HNC patients were enrolled in this in-silico comparative planning study. Per patient, novice planners with less experience in dosimetry planning created an IMRT plan using an MCO system (RayStation). Furthermore, a conventionally planned clinical IMRT plan was available (Pinnacle(3)). All conventional IMRT and MCO-plans were blind-rated by two expert radiation-oncologists in HNC, using a 5-point scale (1-5 with 5 the highest score) assessment form comprising 10 questions. Additionally, plan quality was reported in terms of planning time, dosimetric and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) comparisons. Inter-rater reliability was derived using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC).RESULTS: In total, the radiation-oncologists rated 800 items on plan quality. The overall plan score indicated no differences between both planning techniques (conventional IMRT: 3.8 ± 1.2 vs. MCO: 3.6 ± 1.1, p = 0.29). The inter-rater reliability of all ratings was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.57-0.71), indicating substantial agreement between the radiation-oncologists. In 93% of cases, the scoring difference of the conventional IMRT and MCO-plans was one point or less. Furthermore, MCO-plans led to slightly higher dose uniformity in the therapeutic planning target volume, to a lower integral body dose (13.9 ± 4.5 Gy vs. 12.9 ± 4.0 Gy, p < 0.001), and to reduced dose to the contra-lateral parotid gland (28.1 ± 11.8 Gy vs. 23.0 ± 11.2 Gy, p < 0.002). Consequently, NTCP estimates for xerostomia reduced by 8.4 ± 7.4% (p < 0.003). The hands-on time of the conventional IMRT planning was approximately 205 min. The time to create an MCO-plan was on average 43 ± 12 min.CONCLUSIONS: MCO planning enables novice treatment planners to create high quality IMRT plans for HNC patients. Plans were created with vastly reduced planning times, requiring less resources and a short learning curve.
DOCUMENT
Summary Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the adoption and actual use of a digital dietary monitoring system (DDMS) and its impact on patient satisfaction with the provided hospital care, body weight changes and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with potentially curable esophageal cancer planned for surgery. The DDMS enables patients and dietitians to monitor patients' nutritional intake and body weight during the preoperative period. Methods In this prospective observational study, the first 47 included patients received usual nutritional care, and were followed from diagnosis until surgery. After implementation of the DDMS 37 patients were followed, again from diagnosis until surgery. Main outcomes were actual use of the DDMS, by means of adoption and usage measures, overall patient satisfaction (EORTC-INPATSAT32), weight change and HRQoL (EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC-OG25). Outcomes were assessed immediately after diagnosis, and 6 and 12 weeks later. Results The system had an adoption rate of 64% and a usage rate of 78%. No significant effects on patient satisfaction were found at 12 weeks after diagnosis between the intervention and the usual care group. The implementation of the DDMS also had no significant effect on body weight and HRQoL over time. Conclusions Patients with potentially curable esophageal cancer planned for surgery were able to use the DDMS. However, no significant effects on patient satisfaction, body weight changes and HRQoL were observed. Further research should focus on the specific needs of patients regarding information and support to preoperatively optimize nutritional intake and nutritional status.
MULTIFILE
