1. Assessing the performance of an automated breast treatment planning software
- Author
-
Jeremy D.P. Hoisak, Gina Mansy, Irena Dragojević, Douglas A. Rahn, and Ryan P. Manger
- Subjects
automated planning ,treatment planning ,Radiotherapy Planning ,Clinical Sciences ,Medical Physiology ,Breast radiotherapy ,Breast Neoplasms ,Breast treatment ,030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging ,Dose homogeneity ,03 medical and health sciences ,Kruppel-Like Factor 4 ,0302 clinical medicine ,Computer-Assisted ,breast cancer ,Clinical Research ,Medicine ,Dosimetry ,Radiation Oncology Physics ,Humans ,Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging ,breast radiotherapy ,Breast ,Radiation treatment planning ,Instrumentation ,Cancer ,automation ,Retrospective Studies ,Radiation ,dosimetry ,business.industry ,Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted ,Radiotherapy Dosage ,Conformity index ,Other Physical Sciences ,Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging ,030220 oncology & carcinogenesis ,Female ,business ,Nuclear medicine ,Software - Abstract
PurposeTo assess the dosimetric performance of an automated breast planning software.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 15 breast cancer patients treated with tangent fields according to the RTOG 1005 protocol and 30 patients treated off-protocol. Planning with electronic compensators (eComps) via manual, iterative fluence editing was compared to an automated planning program called EZFluence (EZF) (Radformation, Inc.). We compared the minimum dose received by 95% of the volume (D95%), D90%, the volume receiving at least 105% of prescription (V105%), V95%, the conformity index of the V95% and PTV volumes (CI95%), and total monitor units (MUs). The PTV_Eval structure generated by EZF was compared to the RTOG 1005 breast PTV_Eval structure.ResultsThe average D95% was significantly greater for the EZF plans, 95.0%, vs. the original plans 93.2% (P=0.022). CI95% was less for the EZF plans, 1.18, than the original plans, 1.48 (P=0.09). D90% was only slightly greater for EZF, averaging at 98.3% for EZF plans and 97.3% for the original plans (P=0.0483). V105% (cc) was, on average, 27.8cc less in the EZF breast plans, which was significantly less than for those manually planned. The average number of MUs for the EZF plans, 453, was significantly less than original protocol plans, 500 (P=8×10-6 ). The average difference between the protocol PTV volume and the EZF PTV volume was 196cc, with all but two cases having a larger EZF PTV volume (P=0.020).ConclusionEZF improved dose homogeneity, coverage, and MU efficiency vs. manually produced eComp plans. The EZF-generated PTV eval is based on the volume encompassed by the tangents, and is not appropriate for dosimetric comparison to constraints for RTOG 1005PTV eval. EZF produced dosimetrically similar or superior plans to manual, iteratively derived plans and may also offer time and efficiency benefits.
- Published
- 2021