Multicriteria optimization enables less experienced planners to efficiently produce high quality treatment plans in head and neck cancer radiotherapy

Radiation Oncology

Erik W Korevaar²  Roel JHM Steenbakkers²  Aart A van ‘t Veld²  Johannes A Langendijk²  Hendrik P Bijl²  Ruurd Visser¹  Roel GJ Kierkels² 

[1]Department of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy, Hanze University of Applied Sciences, Groningen, the Netherlands

[2]Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen 9700 RB, the Netherlands

关键词: Treatment planning;    Head and neck cancer;    Intensity-modulated radiotherapy;    Multicriteria optimization;   

Others  :  1164477
DOI  :  10.1186/s13014-015-0385-9

 received in 2014-11-23, accepted in 2015-03-17,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

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 (Pinnacle³). 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.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Kierkels et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Langendijk J a, Doornaert P, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, Leemans CR, Aaronson NK, Slotman BJ. Impact of late treatment-related toxicity on quality of life among patients with head and neck cancer treated with radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26:3770-6.
• [2]Dirix P, Nuyts S. Evidence-based organ-sparing radiotherapy in head and neck cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2010; 11:85-91.
• [3]Nutting CM, Morden JP, Harrington KJ, Urbano TG, Bhide SA, Clark C et al.. Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011; 12:127-36.
• [4]Christianen MEMC, Schilstra C, Beetz I, Muijs CT, Chouvalova O, Burlage FR et al.. Predictive modelling for swallowing dysfunction after primary (chemo)radiation: results of a prospective observational study. Radiother Oncol. 2012; 105:107-14.
• [5]Holt A, Van Gestel D, Arends MP, Korevaar EW, Schuring D, Kunze Busch MC et al.. Multi-institutional comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy vs. intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head-and-neck cancer: a planning study. Radiat Oncol. 2013; 8:26. BioMed Central Full Text
• [6]Bohsung J, Gillis S, Arrans R, Bakai A, De Wagter C, Knöös T et al.. IMRT treatment planning:- a comparative inter-system and inter-centre planning exercise of the ESTRO QUASIMODO group. Radiother Oncol. 2005; 76:354-61.
• [7]Chung HT, Lee B, Park E, Lu JJ, Xia P. Can all centers plan intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) effectively? An external audit of dosimetric comparisons between three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and IMRT for adjuvant chemoradiation for gastric cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008; 71:1167-74.
• [8]RaySearch Laboratories AB. Multi criteria optimization in RayStation. White Paper. 2012.
• [9]Craft DL, Hong TS, Shih HA, Bortfeld TR. Improved planning time and plan quality through multicriteria optimization for intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 82:e83-90.
• [10]Voet PWJ, Dirkx MLP, Breedveld S, Fransen D, Levendag PC, Heijmen BJM. Toward fully automated multicriterial plan generation: a prospective clinical study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013; 85:866-72.
• [11]Wala J, Craft D, Paly J, Zietman A, Efstathiou J. Maximizing dosimetric benefits of IMRT in the treatment of localized prostate cancer through multicriteria optimization planning. Med Dosim. 2013; 38:298-303.
• [12]Thieke C, Küfer K-H, Monz M, Scherrer A, Alonso F, Oelfke U et al.. A new concept for interactive radiotherapy planning with multicriteria optimization: first clinical evaluation. Radiother Oncol. 2007; 85:292-8.
• [13]McGarry CK, Bokrantz R, O’Sullivan JM, Hounsell AR. Advantages and limitations of navigation-based multicriteria optimization (MCO) for localized prostate cancer IMRT planning. Med Dosim. 2014; 39:205-11.
• [14]Craft D, Halabi T, Shih HA, Bortfeld T. An approach for practical multiobjective IMRT treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007; 69:1600-7.
• [15]Christianen MEMC, Langendijk JA, Westerlaan HE, Van De Water TA, Bijl HP. Delineation of organs at risk involved in swallowing for radiotherapy treatment planning. Radiother Oncol. 2011; 101:394-402.
• [16]Houweling AC, Philippens MEP, Dijkema T, Roesink JM, Terhaard CHJ, Schilstra C et al.. A comparison of dose–response models for the parotid gland in a large group of head-and-neck cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010; 76:1259-65.
• [17]Fredriksson A, Bokrantz R. Deliverable navigation for multicriteria IMRT treatment planning by combining shared and individual apertures. Phys Med Biol. 2013; 58:7683-97.
• [18]Kierkels RGJ, Korevaar EW, Steenbakkers RJHM, Janssen T, Van’t Veld AA, Langendijk JA et al.. Direct use of multivariable normal tissue complication probability models in treatment plan optimisation for individualised head and neck cancer radiotherapy produces clinically acceptable treatment plans. Radiother Oncol. 2014; 112:430-6.