Search

Purpose: We aim to evaluate a new commercial dose mimicking inverse-planning application that was designed to provide cross-platform treatment planning, for its dosimetric quality and efficiency. The clinical benefit of this application allows patients treated on O-shaped linac to receive an equivalent plan on conventional L-shaped linac as needed for workflow or machine downtime. Methods: The dose mimicking optimization process seeks to create a similar DVH of an O-shaped linac-based plans with an alternative treatment technique (IMRT or VMAT), by maintaining target conformity, and penalizing dose falloff outside the target. Ten head and neck (HN) helical delivery plans, including simple and complex cases were selected for re-planning with the dose mimicking application. All plans were generated for a 6 MV beam model, using 7-field/ 9-field IMRT and VMAT techniques. PTV coverage (D1, D99 and homogeneity index [HI]), and OARs avoidance (Dmean / Dmax) were compared. Results: The resulting dose mimicked HN plans achieved acceptable PTV coverage for HI (VMAT 7.0±2.3, 7-fld 7.3±2.4, and 9-fld 7.0±2.4), D99 (98.0%±0.7%, 97.8%±0.7%, and 98.0%±0.7%), as well as D1 (106.4%±2.1%, 106.5%±2.2%, and 106.4%±2.1%), respectively. The OAR dose discrepancy varied: brainstem (2% to 4%), cord (3% to 6%), esophagus (−4% to −8%), larynx (−4% to 2%), and parotid (4% to 14%). Mimicked plans would typically be needed for 1–5 fractions of a treatment course, and we estimate

Purpose: Adaptive radiotherapy requires complete new sets of regions of interests (ROIs) delineation on the mid-treatment CT images. This work aims at evaluating the accuracy of the RayStation hybrid deformable image registration (DIR) algorithm for its overall integrity and accuracy in contour propagation for adaptive planning. Methods: The hybrid DIR is based on the combination of intensity-based algorithm and anatomical information provided by contours. Patients who received mid-treatment CT scans were identified for the study, including six lung patients (two mid-treatment CTs) and six head-and-neck (HN) patients (one mid-treatment CT). DIRpropagated ROIs were compared with physician-drawn ROIs for 8 ITVs and 7 critical organs (lungs, heart, esophagus, and etc.) for the lung patients, as well as 14 GTVs and 20 critical organs (mandible, eyes, parotids, and etc.) for the HN patients. Volume difference, center of mass (COM) difference, and Dice index were used for evaluation. Clinical-relevance of each propagated ROI was scored by two physicians, and correlated with the Dice index. Results: For critical organs, good agreement (Dice>0.9) were seen on all 7 for lung patients and 13 out of 20 for HN patients, with the rest requiring minimal edits. For targets, COM differences were within 5 mm on average for all patients. For Lung, 5 out of 8 ITVs required minimal edits (Dice 0.8–0.9), with the rest 2 needed re-drawn due to their small volumes (

Purpose: Clinical workflow and machine down time occasionally require patients to be temporarily treated on a system other than the initial treatment machine. A new commercial dose mimicking application provides automated cross-platform treatment planning to expedite this clinical flexibility. The aim of this work is to evaluate the feasibility of automatic plan creation and establish a robust clinical workflow for prostate and pelvis patients. Methods: Five prostate and five pelvis patients treated with helical plans were selected for re-planning with the dose mimicking application, covering both simple and complex scenarios. Two-arc VMAT and 7- and 9-field IMRT plans were generated for each case, with the objective function of achieving similar dose volume histogram from the initial helical plans. Dosimetric comparisons include target volumes and organs at risk (OARs) (rectum, bladder, small bowel, femoral heads, etc.). Dose mimicked plans were evaluated by a radiation oncologist, and patient-specific QAs were performed to validate delivery. Results: Overall plan generation and transfer required around 30 minutes of dosimetrist’s time once the dose-mimicking protocol is setup for each site. The resulting VMAT and 7- and 9-field IMRT plans achieved equivalent PTV coverage and homogeneity (D99/DRx = 97.3%, 97.2%, 97.2% and HI = 6.0, 5.8, and 5.9, respectively), compared to helical plans (97.6% and 4.6). The OAR dose discrepancies were up to 6% in rectum Dmean, but generally lower in bladder, femoral heads, bowel and penile bulb. In the context of 1–5 fractions, the radiation oncologist evaluated the dosimetric changes as not clinically significant. All delivery QAs achieved >90% pass with a 3%/3mm gamma criteria. Conclusion: The automated dose-mimicking workflow offers a strategy to avoid missing treatment fractions due to machine down time with non-clinically significant changes in dosimetry. Future work will further optimize dose mimicking plans and investigate other cross-platform treatment delivery options.