A comparison of in-house and shared RapidPlan models for prostate radiation therapy planning

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. Two 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. 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. Variations in local planning practices including contouring, treatment technique and planning goals can influence the relative performance of KBP. The value of p ublicly 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.
Source: Australasian Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine - Category: Biomedical Engineering Source Type: research