A Step Toward Making VMAT TBI More Prevalent: Automating the Treatment Planning Process

E Simiele; L Skinner; Y Yang; E S Blomain; R T Hoppe; S M Hiniker; N Kovalchuk

doi:10.1016/j.prro.2021.02.010

A Step Toward Making VMAT TBI More Prevalent: Automating the Treatment Planning Process

Pract Radiat Oncol. 2021 Sep-Oct;11(5):415-423. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2021.02.010. Epub 2021 Mar 10.

Authors

E Simiele¹, L Skinner¹, Y Yang¹, E S Blomain¹, R T Hoppe¹, S M Hiniker¹, N Kovalchuk²

Affiliations

¹ Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
² Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California. Electronic address: natkoval@stanford.edu.

PMID: 33711488
DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2021.02.010

Abstract

Purpose: Our purpose was to automate the treatment planning process for total body irradiation (TBI) with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT).

Methods and materials: Two scripts were developed to facilitate autoplanning: the binary plug-in script automating the creation of optimization structures, plan generation, beam placement, and setting of the optimization constraints and the stand-alone executable performing successive optimizations. Ten patients previously treated in our clinic with VMAT TBI were used to evaluate the efficacy of the proposed autoplanning process. Paired t tests were used to compare the dosimetric indices of the produced auto plans to the manually generated clinical plans. In addition, 3 physicians were asked to evaluate the manual and autoplans for each patient in a blinded retrospective review.

Results: No significant differences were observed between the manual and autoplan global D_max (P < .893), planning target volume V110% (P < .734), kidneys D_mean (P < .351), and bowel D_max (P < .473). Significant decreases in the D_mean to the lungs and lungs-1cm (ie, lungs with 1-cm inner margin) volumes of 5.4% ± 6.4% (P < .024) and 6.8% ± 7.4% (P < .017), respectively, were obtained with the autoplans compared with the manual plans. The autoplans were selected 77% of the time by the reviewing physicians as equivalent or superior to the manual plans. The required time for treatment planning was estimated to be 2 to 3 days for the manual plans compared with approximately 3 to 5 hours for the autoplans.

Conclusions: Large reductions in planning time without sacrificing plan quality were obtained using the developed autoplanning process compared with manual planning, thus reducing the required effort of the treatment planning team. Superior lung sparing with the same target coverage and similar global D_max were observed with the autoplans as compared with the manual treatment plans. The developed scripts have been made open-source to improve access to VMAT TBI at other institutions and clinics.

MeSH terms

Humans
Organs at Risk
Radiotherapy Dosage
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated*
Retrospective Studies
Whole-Body Irradiation