Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Dec;45(4):1029-1041.
doi: 10.1007/s13246-022-01151-1. Epub 2022 Sep 5.

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

E Claridge Mackonis  1   2 , J Sykes  3   4 , N Hardcastle  5   4 , A Espinoza  3 , A Brown  6 , G Perez  7 , B Evans  8 , H Sheehan  8 , A Haworth  4
Affiliations

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

E Claridge Mackonis et al. Phys Eng Sci Med. 2022 Dec.

Abstract

Knowledge-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. 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 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.

Keywords: Knowledge-based planning (KBP); Prostate; Radiation oncology; RapidPlan; Shared models.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflicts of interest exist for any of the authors with respect to this research and manuscript.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
a The volume of PTV receiving 95% of the prescription dose (V95%) for the three centres (A, B, C) and for the four models (Model A, Model B, UCSD and UCSD edit), shown as a percentage. The cyan line indicates the eviQ acceptable level. b Percentage dose received by 1 cc of PTV (D1cc) for the three centres (A, B and C) and for the four models (Centre A, Centre B, UCSD and UCSD edit)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The percentage of bladder receiving a dose of 51.3% or more (equivalent to V40Gy for a 78 Gy prescription) for the three centres (A, B, C) and for the four models (Centre A, Centre B, UCSD and UCSD edit). The cyan line indicates the 78 Gy prostate eviQ acceptable tolerance
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
The percentage of rectum receiving a dose of 51.3% or more (equivalent to V40Gy for a 78 Gy prescription) for the three centres (A, B, C) and for the four models (Centre A, Centre B, UCSD and UCSD edit). The cyan line indicates the 78 Gy prostate eviQ acceptable tolerance
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
The dose distribution of a patient from Centre B representative of the majority of patients. PTV shown in pink, CTV shown in orange, 50% isodose shown as orange, 100% isodose shown as cyan and the colour wash indicating 95–107% dose. Top Left—Model A. Top Right—Model B. Bottom Left—UCSD. Bottom Right—UCSD edit
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Scaggion A, Fusella M, Roggio A, Bacco S, Pivato N, Rossato MA, et al. Reducing inter- and intra-planner variability in radiotherapy plan output with a commercial knowledge-based planning solution. Phys Med. 2018;53:86–93. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.08.016. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fogliata A, Reggiori G, Stravato A, Lobefalo F, Franzese C, Franceschini D, et al. RapidPlan head and neck model: the objectives and possible clinical benefit. Radiat Oncol. 2017;12(1):73. doi: 10.1186/s13014-017-0808-x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hussein M, South CP, Barry MA, Adams EJ, Jordan TJ, Stewart AJ, et al. Clinical validation and benchmarking of knowledge-based IMRT and VMAT treatment planning in pelvic anatomy. Radiother Oncol. 2016;120(3):473–479. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.06.022. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fogliata A, Belosi F, Clivio A, Navarria P, Nicolini G, Scorsetti M, et al. On the pre-clinical validation of a commercial model-based optimisation engine: application to volumetric modulated arc therapy for patients with lung or prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2014;113(3):385–391. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2014.11.009. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chang ATY, Hung AWM, Cheung FWK, Lee MCH, Chan OSH, Philips H, et al. Comparison of planning quality and efficiency between conventional and knowledge-based algorithms in nasopharyngeal cancer patients using intensity modulated radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;95(3):981–990. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.02.017. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms