TY - JOUR
T1 - Automatic genetic planning for volumetric modulated arc therapy: A large multi-centre validation for prostate cancer
AU - Fiandra, Christian
AU - Rossi, Linda
AU - Alparone, Alessandro
AU - Zara, Stefania
AU - Vecchi, Claudio
AU - Sardo, Anna
AU - Bartoncini, Sara
AU - Loi, Gianfranco
AU - Pisani, Carla
AU - Gino, Eva
AU - Ruo Redda, Maria Grazia
AU - Marco Deotto, Gian
AU - Tini, Paolo
AU - Comi, Stefania
AU - Zerini, Dario
AU - Ametrano, Gianluca
AU - Borzillo, Valentina
AU - Strigari, Lidia
AU - Strolin, Silvia
AU - Savini, Alessandro
AU - Romeo, Antonino
AU - Reccanello, Sonia
AU - Rumeileh, Imad Abu
AU - Ciscognetti, Nunzia
AU - Guerrisi, Flavia
AU - Balestra, Gabriella
AU - Ricardi, Umberto
AU - Heijmen, Ben
N1 - Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/7
Y1 - 2020/7
N2 - PURPOSE: The first clinical genetic autoplanning algorithm (Genetic Planning Solution, GPS) was validated in ten radiotherapy centres for prostate cancer VMAT by comparison with manual planning (Manual).METHODS: Although there were large differences among centres in planning protocol, GPS was tuned with the data of a single centre and then applied everywhere without any centre-specific fine-tuning. For each centre, ten Manual plans were compared with autoGPS plans, considering dosimetric plan parameters and the Clinical Blind Score (CBS) resulting from blind clinician plan comparisons. AutoGPS plans were used as is, i.e. there was no patient-specific fine-tuning.RESULTS: For nine centres, all ten plans were clinically acceptable. In the remaining centre, only one plan was acceptable. For the 91% acceptable plans, differences between Manual and AutoGPS in target coverage were negligible. OAR doses were significantly lower in AutoGPS plans (p < 0.05); rectum D15% and Dmean were reduced by 8.1% and 17.9%, bladder D25% and Dmean by 5.9% and 10.3%. According to clinicians, 69% of the acceptable AutoGPS plans were superior to the corresponding Manual plan. In case of preferred Manual plans (31%), perceived advantages compared to autoGPS were minor. QA measurements demonstrated that autoGPS plans were deliverable. A quick configuration adjustment in the centre with unacceptable plans rendered 100% of plans acceptable.CONCLUSION: A novel, clinically applied genetic autoplanning algorithm was validated in 10 centres for in total 100 prostate cancer patients. High quality plans could be generated at different centres without centre-specific algorithm tuning.
AB - PURPOSE: The first clinical genetic autoplanning algorithm (Genetic Planning Solution, GPS) was validated in ten radiotherapy centres for prostate cancer VMAT by comparison with manual planning (Manual).METHODS: Although there were large differences among centres in planning protocol, GPS was tuned with the data of a single centre and then applied everywhere without any centre-specific fine-tuning. For each centre, ten Manual plans were compared with autoGPS plans, considering dosimetric plan parameters and the Clinical Blind Score (CBS) resulting from blind clinician plan comparisons. AutoGPS plans were used as is, i.e. there was no patient-specific fine-tuning.RESULTS: For nine centres, all ten plans were clinically acceptable. In the remaining centre, only one plan was acceptable. For the 91% acceptable plans, differences between Manual and AutoGPS in target coverage were negligible. OAR doses were significantly lower in AutoGPS plans (p < 0.05); rectum D15% and Dmean were reduced by 8.1% and 17.9%, bladder D25% and Dmean by 5.9% and 10.3%. According to clinicians, 69% of the acceptable AutoGPS plans were superior to the corresponding Manual plan. In case of preferred Manual plans (31%), perceived advantages compared to autoGPS were minor. QA measurements demonstrated that autoGPS plans were deliverable. A quick configuration adjustment in the centre with unacceptable plans rendered 100% of plans acceptable.CONCLUSION: A novel, clinically applied genetic autoplanning algorithm was validated in 10 centres for in total 100 prostate cancer patients. High quality plans could be generated at different centres without centre-specific algorithm tuning.
U2 - 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.04.020
DO - 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.04.020
M3 - Article
C2 - 32361572
VL - 148
SP - 126
EP - 132
JO - Radiotherapy and Oncology
JF - Radiotherapy and Oncology
SN - 0167-8140
ER -