Published January 2021 | Version v1
Journal article

Dosimetric evaluation of simplified knowledge based plan with an extensive stepping validation approach in volumetric-modulated arc therapy stereotactic body radiotherapy for lung cancer Highly accessed article

  • 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Kindai University, Osaka (Japan)
  • 2. Department of Medical Physics, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kindai University, Osakasayama, Osaka (Japan)

Description

Purpose: We investigated the performance of the simplified knowledge-based plans (KBPs) in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for lung cancer. Materials and Methods: For 50 cases who underwent SBRT, only three structures were registered into knowledge based model: total lung, spinal cord, and planning target volume. We performed single auto optimization on VMAT plans in two steps: 19 cases used for the model training (closed loop validation) and 16 new cases outside of training set (open loop validation) for TrueBeam (TB) and Halcyon (Hal) linacs. The dosimetric parameters were compared between clinical plans (CLPs) and KBPs: CLPclosed, KBPclosed-TB and KBPclosed-Hal in closed loop validation, CLPopen, KBPopen-TB and KBPopen-Hal in open loop validation. Results: All organs at risk were comparable between CLPs and KBPs except for contralateral lung: V5 of KBPs was approximately 3%–7% higher than that of CLPs. V20 of total lung for KBPs showed comparable to CLPs; CLPclosed vs. KBPclosed-TB and CLPclosed vs. KBPclosed-Hal: 4.36% ± 2.87% vs. 3.54% ± 1.95% and 4.36 ± 2.87% vs. 3.54% ± 1.94% (P = 0.54 and 0.54); CLPopen vs. KBPopen-TB and CLPopen vs. KBPopen-Hal: 4.18% ± 1.57% vs. 3.55% ± 1.27% and 4.18% ± 1.57% vs. 3.67% ± 1.26% (P = 0.19 and 0.27). CI95 of KBPs with both linacs was superior to that of the CLP in closed loop validation: CLPclosed vs. KBPclosed-TB vs. KBPclosed-Hal: 1.32% ± 0.12% vs. 1.18% ± 0.09% vs. 1.17% ± 0.06% (P < 0.01); and open loop validation: CLPopen vs. KBPopen-TB vs. KBPopen-Hal: 1.22% ± 0.09% vs. 1.14% ± 0.04% vs. 1.16% ± 0.05% (P ≤ 0.01). Conclusions: The simplified KBPs with limited number of structures and without planner intervention were clinically acceptable in the dosimetric parameters for lung VMAT-SBRT planning. (author)

Availability note (English)

Available from DOI: 10.4103/jmp.JMP_67_20

Additional details

Identifiers

Publishing Information

Journal Title
Journal of Medical Physics
Journal Volume
46
Journal Issue
1
Journal Page Range
p. 7-15
CODEN
JMPHFE