Program Information
Cross-Institutional Validation of An Ultrafast Automatic Planning Platform for Breast Irradiation
T Li1*, Y Sheng2 , V Lockamy1 , P Anne1 , N Simone1 , QJ Wu2 , Y Yu1 , (1) Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, (2) Duke University, Durham, NC
Presentations
SU-C-BRB-3 (Sunday, July 31, 2016) 1:00 PM - 1:55 PM Room: Ballroom B
Purpose:
Recently an ultrafast automatic planning system for breast irradiation using tangential beams was developed by modeling relationships between patient anatomy and achieved dose distribution. This study evaluates the performance of this system when applied to a different patient population and dose calculation algorithm.
Methods:
The system and its anatomy-to-dose models was developed at institution A based on 20 cases, which were planned using manual fluence painting technique and calculated WITH heterogeneity correction. Institution B uses field-in-field planning technique and dose calculation WITHOUT heterogeneity correction.
11 breast cases treated at Institution B were randomly selected for retrospective study, including left and right sides, and different breast size (irradiated volumes defined by Jaw/MLC opening range from 875cc to 3516cc).
Comparisons between plans generated automatically (Auto-Plans) and those used for treatment (Clinical-Plans) included: energy choice (single/mixed), volumes receiving 95%/100%/105%/110% Rx dose (V95%/V100%/V105%/V100%) relative to irradiated volume, D1cc, and LungV20Gy.
Results:
In 9 out of 11 cases single/mixed energy choice made by the software agreed with Clinical-Plans. For the remaining 2 cases software recommended using mixed energy and dosimetric improvements were observed.
V100% were similar (p=0.223, Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test) between Auto-Plans and Clinical-Plans (57.6±8.9% vs. 54.8±9.5%). V95% is 2.3±3.0% higher for Auto-Plans (p=0.027), indicating reduced cold areas. Hot spot volume V105% were significantly reduced in Auto-Plan by 14.4±7.2% (p=0.004). Absolute V105% was reduced from 395.6±359.9cc for Clinical-Plans to 108.7±163cc for Auto-Plans. D1cc was 107.4±2.8% for Auto-Plans, and 109.2±2.4% for Clinical-Plans (p=0.056). LungV20Gy were 13.6±4.0% for Auto-Plan vs. 14.0±4.1% for Clinical-Plans (p=0.043).
All optimizations were finished within 1.5min.
Conclusion:
The performance of this breast auto-planning system remained stable and satisfactory when applied to a different patient population and dose calculation algorithm. The auto-planning system was able to produce clinically similar Rx dose coverage with significantly improved homogeneity inside breast tissue, in less than 1.5min.
Contact Email: