A Comparison of in-house and Shared Rapidplan Models for Prostate Radiation Therapy Planning

PurposeKnowledge-based planning (KBP) can increase plan quality, consistency and efficiency. In this study, we assess the success of a using a publicly available KBP model compared with developing an in-house model for prostate cancer radiotherapy using a single, commercially available treatment planning system based on the ability of the model to achieve the centre’s planning goals. Methods and MaterialsTwo radiation oncology centres each created a prostate cancer KBP model using the Eclipse RapidPlan software. These two models and a third publicly-available, shared model were tested at three centres in a retrospective planning study. Results The publicly-available model achieved lower rectum doses than the other two models. However, the planning-target-volume (PTV) doses did not meet the local planning goals and the model could not be adjusted to correct this. As a result, the plans most likely to satisfy local planning goals and requirements were created using an in-house model. For centres without an existing in-house model, a model created by another centre with similar planning goals was found to be preferred. ConclusionsVariations in local planning practices including contouring, treatment technique and planning goals can influence the relative performance of KBP. The value of publicly available KBP models could be enhanced through standardisation of planning goals and contouring guidelines, providing information related to the planning goals used to create the model and increased flexibility to allow local adaptation of the KBP model.

Method of computing direction-dependent margins for the development of consensus contouring guidelines

Background Clinical target volume (CTV) contouring guidelines are frequently developed through studies in which experts contour the CTV for a representative set of cases for a given treatment site and the consensus CTVs are analyzed to generate margin recommendations. Measures of interobserver variability are used to quantify agreement between experts. In cases where an isotropic margin is not appropriate, however, there is no standard method to compute margins in specified directions that represent possible routes of tumor spread. Moreover, interobserver variability metrics are often measures of volume overlap that do not account for the dependence of disagreement on direction. To aid in the development of consensus contouring guidelines, this study demonstrates a novel method of quantifying CTV margins and interobserver variability in clinician-specified directions. Methods The proposed algorithm was applied to 11 cases of non-spine bone metastases to compute the consensus CTV margin in each direction of intraosseous and extraosseous disease. The median over all cases for each route of spread yielded the recommended margins. The disagreement between experts on the CTV margin was quantified by computing the median of the coefficients of variation for intraosseous and extraosseous margins. Results The recommended intraosseous and extraosseous margins were 7.0 mm and 8.0 mm, respectively. The median coefficient of variation quantifying the margin disagreement between experts was 0.59 and 0.48 for intraosseous and extraosseous disease. Conclusions The proposed algorithm permits the generation of margin recommendations in relation to adjacent anatomy and quantifies interobserver variability in specified directions. This method can be applied to future consensus CTV contouring studies.

Method of Computing Direction-dependent Margins for the Development of Consensus Contouring Guidelines

Background: Clinical target volume (CTV) contouring guidelines are frequently developed through studies in which experts contour the CTV for a representative set of cases for a given treatment site and the consensus CTVs are analyzed to generate margin recommendations. Measures of interobserver variability are used to quantify agreement between experts. In cases where an isotropic margin is not appropriate, however, there is no standard method to compute margins in specified directions that represent possible routes of tumor spread. Moreover, interobserver variability metrics are often measures of volume overlap that do not account for the dependence of disagreement on direction. To aid in the development of consensus contouring guidelines, this study demonstrates a novel method of quantifying CTV margins and interobserver variability in clinician-specified directions.Methods: The proposed algorithm was applied to 11 cases of non-spine bone metastases to compute the consensus CTV margin in each direction of intraosseous and extraosseous disease. The median over all cases for each route of spread yielded the recommended margins. The disagreement between experts on the CTV margin was quantified by computing the median of the coefficients of variation for intraosseous and extraosseous margins.Results: The recommended intraosseous and extraosseous margins were 7.0 mm and 8.0 mm, respectively. The median coefficient of variation quantifying the margin disagreement between experts was 0.59 and 0.48 for intraosseous and extraosseous disease.Conclusions: The proposed algorithm permits the generation of margin recommendations in relation to adjacent anatomy and quantifies interobserver variability in specified directions. This method can be applied to future consensus CTV contouring studies.