ABSTRACT
AIM: To assess a class solution template for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for prostate cancer using plan analysis software. BACKGROUND: VMAT is a development of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with potential advantages for the delivery of radiotherapy (RT) in prostate cancer. Class solutions are increasingly used for facilitating RT planning. Plan analysis software provides an objective tool for evaluating class solutions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The class solution for VMAT was based on the current static field IMRT template. The plans of 77 prostate cancer patients were evaluated using a set of in-house plan quality metrics (scores) (PlanIQ™, Sun Nuclear Corporation). The metrics compared the class solution for VMAT planning with the IMRT template and the delivered clinical plan (CP). Eight metrics were associated with target coverage and ten with organs-at-risk (OAR). Individual metrics were summed and the combined scores were subjected to non-parametric analysis. The low-dose wash for both static IMRT and VMAT plans were evaluated using 40 Gy and 25 Gy isodose volumes. RESULTS: VMAT plans were of equal or better quality than the IMRT template and CP for target coverage (combined score) and OAR combined score. The 40 Gy isodose volume was marginally higher with VMAT than IMRT (4.9%) but lower than CP (-6.6%)(P = 0.0074). The 25 Gy volume was significantly lower with VMAT than both IMRT (-32.7%) and CP (-34.4%)(P < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: Automated VMAT planning for prostate cancer is feasible and the plans are equal to or better than the current IMRT class solution and the delivered clinical plan.
ABSTRACT
AIM: To use plan analysis software to evaluate a class solution for prostate intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) planning. BACKGROUND: Class solutions for radiotherapy planning are increasingly being considered for streamlining planning. Plan analysis software provides an objective approach to evaluating radiotherapy plans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three iterations of a class solution for prostate IMRT planning (T1, T2 and Tfinal) were compared to the clinical plan of 74 prostate patients using radiotherapy plan analysis software (Plan IQ™, Sun Nuclear Corporation). A set of institution-specific plan quality metrics (scores) were established, based on best practice guidelines. RESULTS: For CTV coverage, Tfinal was not significantly different to the clinical plan. With the exception of 95% PTV coverage, Tfinal metrics were significantly better than the clinical plan for PTV coverage. In the scoring analysis, mean dose, 95% and 107% isodose coverage scores were similar for all the templates and clinical plan. 100% coverage of the CTV clinical plan was similar to Tfinal but scored higher than T1 and T2. There were no significant differences between Tfinal and the clinical plan for the metrics and scores associated with organs at risk. The total plan score was similar for Tfinal and the clinical plan, although the scores for volume receiving total dose outside the PTV were higher for Tfinal than for the clinical plan (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The radiotherapy plan analysis software was useful for evaluating a class solution for prostate IMRT planning and provided evidence that the class solution produced clinically acceptable plans for these patients.
