Benchmarking a commercial proton therapy solution: The Paul Scherrer Institut experience.

OBJECTIVE: For the past 20 years, Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI) has treated more than 1500 patients with deep-seated tumors using PSI-Plan, an in-house developed treatment planning system (TPS) used for proton beam scanning proton therapy, in combination with its home-built gantries. The goal of the present work is to benchmark the performance of a new TPS/Gantry system for proton therapy centers which have established already a baseline standard of care. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 31 cases (=52 plans) distributed around 7 anatomical sites and 12 indications were randomly selected and re-planned using Eclipse™. The resulting plans were compared with plans formerly optimized in PSI-Plan, in terms of target coverage, plan quality, organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing and number of delivered pencil beams. RESULTS: Our results show an improvement on target coverage and homogeneity when using Eclipse™ while PSI-Plan showed superior plan conformity. As for OAR sparing, both TPS achieved the clinical constraints. The number of pencil beams required per plan was on average 3.4 times higher for PSI-Plan. CONCLUSION: Both systems showed a good capacity to produce satisfactory plans, with Eclipse™ being able to achieve better target coverage and plan homogeneity without compromising OARs. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: A benchmark between a clinically tested and validated system with a commercial solution is of interest for emerging proton therapy, equipped with commercial systems and no previous experience with proton beam scanning.

Automated Knowledge-Based Intensity-Modulated Proton Planning: An International Multicenter Benchmarking Study.

Background: Radiotherapy treatment planning is increasingly automated and knowledge-based planning has been shown to match and sometimes improve upon manual clinical plans, with increased consistency and efficiency. In this study, we benchmarked a novel prototype knowledge-based intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) planning solution, against three international proton centers. Methods: A model library was constructed, comprising 50 head and neck cancer (HNC) manual IMPT plans from a single center. Three external-centers each provided seven manual benchmark IMPT plans. A knowledge-based plan (KBP) using a standard beam arrangement for each patient was compared with the benchmark plan on the basis of planning target volume (PTV) coverage and homogeneity and mean organ-at-risk (OAR) dose. Results: PTV coverage and homogeneity of KBPs and benchmark plans were comparable. KBP mean OAR dose was lower in 32/54, 45/48 and 38/53 OARs from center-A, -B and -C, with 23/32, 38/45 and 23/38 being >2 Gy improvements, respectively. In isolated cases the standard beam arrangement or an OAR not being included in the model or being contoured differently, led to higher individual KBP OAR doses. Generating a KBP typically required <10 min. Conclusions: A knowledge-based IMPT planning solution using a single-center model could efficiently generate plans of comparable quality to manual HNC IMPT plans from centers with differing planning aims. Occasional higher KBP OAR doses highlight the need for beam angle optimization and manual review of KBPs. The solution furthermore demonstrated the potential for robust optimization.