Sponsored Content | Case Study | Radiology Imaging | September 09, 2015

The Effect of Planning Speed on VMAT Plan Quality

A planning study of complex prostate and head and neck cases in two different RayStation treatment planning setups (TPS)

Three plans and respective DVHs, P1B5 (solid), P1F4 (dashed), P1F5 (dotted)

Case one: Three plans and respective DVHs, P1B5 (solid), P1F4 (dashed), P1F5 (dotted)

Three plans and respective DVHs, P1B5 (solid), P1F4 (dashed), P1F5 (dotted)

Case one: Three plans and respective DVHs, P1B5 (solid), P1F4 (dashed), P1F5 (dotted)

Three plans and respective DVHs, P6F1 (solid), P6B5 (dashed), P6B4 (dotted)

Case two: Three plans and respective DVHs, P6F1 (solid), P6B5 (dashed), P6B4 (dotted)

Three plans and respective DVHs, P6F1 (solid), P6B5 (dashed), P6B4 (dotted)

Case two: Three plans and respective DVHs, P6F1 (solid), P6B5 (dashed), P6B4 (dotted)

Plan optimization and dose calculation for complex VMAT plans are computationally challenging tasks. Depending on the efficiency of the TPS implementation, and the hardware on which it runs, calculation times can range from a few minutes to up to more than a half hour. It stands to reason that a dosimetrist equipped with a high performing system should be able to produce plans of higher quality compared to one equipped with a slow system irrespective of his/her experience level. This study aims to measure the effect of planning speed on plan quality. 

 

Setup

20 people with IMRT and/or VMAT planning experience from clinics that use RayStation participated in the study. Two RayStation configurations were used. One was equivalent to the regular RayStation 4.7 and the other was slowed down so that optimizations and dose calculations took 4-5 times longer than usual. Two patient cases were used, one very complex prostate case and one complex head and neck case. For both cases, dual arc VMAT was used. For each case, a scoring system based on the fulfillment of clinical goals had been created and was communicated to the participants. In the first two-hour session, all participants planned the first case. Half of the participants used the fast system and half used the slow system. For the second two-hour session, all participants planned the second case and all changed system speeds. This way, all participants planned both cases and used both systems. The participants were not informed about the nature of the difference between the systems, only that there were two different types.

 

Main Result

All participants successfully created a plan in the allocated time. In the main analysis, seven users were excluded as they did not compute dose with the clinical dose engine in one or both cases. For the 13 remaining participants, we found that all users scored consistently better when using the fast systems and that the average improvement was 15 points using the above mentioned scoring.

 

Example Results

Case One. In the images on the left, the plan P1B5 was planned on a fast system and P1F4 and P1F5 on slow systems. P1F4 and P1F5 scored 10.9 and 18.3 points worse than P1B5, making them representative examples of the 15 point average score difference. In general, P1B5 achieved a much better conformity without sacrificing homogeneity.

Case Two. In the images above, the plan P6F1 was planned on a fast system and the plans P6B5 and P6B4 on slow systems. P6B5 and P6B4 scored 10.6 and 15.6 points worse than P1B5 making them representative examples of the 15 point average score difference. In general, P6F1 achieved a much better conformity without sacrificing homogeneity. 

 

Conclusion

Decreasing calculation times for VMAT planning from around 10-17 minutes for optimization and final dose calculation to around 2-4 minutes significantly increased the fulfillment of clinical goals. This shows the relevance of computation speed in planning complex cases and reinforces the importance that should be given to this. 

Case study supplied by RaySearch.

Related Content

Varian Drives Next Evolution of Proton Treatment Planning with Eclipse v16.1
News | Treatment Planning | September 15, 2020
September 15, 2020 — Varian announced it has received FDA 510(k) clearance for its Eclipse v16.1 treatment planning s
At the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) 2019 meeting, new artificial intelligence (AI) software to assist with radiotherapy treatment planning systems was highlighted. The goal of the AI-based systems is to save staff time, while still allowing clinicians to do the final patient review. 
Feature | Treatment Planning | July 08, 2020 | By Melinda Taschetta-Millane
At the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) 201
Varian received FDA clearance for its Ethos therapy in February 2020. It is an adaptive intelligence solution that uses onboard AI in the treatment system to take the cone beam CT imaging on the system, compare it to the treatment plan and deliver an entire adaptive treatment plan in a typical 15-minute treatment time slot, from patient setup through treatment delivery.

Varian received FDA clearance for its Ethos therapy in February 2020, shown here displayed for the first time at ASTRO 2019. It is an adaptive intelligence solution that uses onboard AI in the treatment system to take the cone beam CT imaging on the system, compare it to the treatment plan and deliver an entire adaptive treatment plan in a typical 15-minute treatment time slot, from patient setup through treatment delivery.

Feature | Treatment Planning | April 03, 2020 | Dave Fornell, Editor
The traditional treatment planning process takes days to create an optimized radiation therapy delivery plan, but new
MD Anderson and Varian Partner to Optimize Radiation Oncology Treatment
News | Treatment Planning | October 18, 2019
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Varian announced a new strategic collaboration to develop an...
First Patients Treated With Machine Learning-generated Plans from RayStation 8B
News | Treatment Planning | September 23, 2019
The first-ever patient radiation therapy treatments generated with machine learning in the RayStation treatment...
The Siemens Somatom Go.Sim computed tomography (CT) system for dedicated radiation therapy planning

The Siemens Somatom Go.Sim computed tomography (CT) system for dedicated radiation therapy planning. Image courtesy of Siemens Healthineers.

News | Computed Tomography (CT) | September 15, 2019
Siemens Healthineers debuted two computed tomography (CT) systems dedicated to radiation therapy (RT) planning at the...
Philips Showcases Integrated Radiation Oncology Portfolio at ASTRO 2019
News | Radiation Oncology | September 13, 2019
Philips will showcase its integrated radiation oncology portfolio at the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO...
First Clinical Monte Carlo Photon Dose Planning Conducted in RayStation
News | Treatment Planning | September 05, 2019
Heidelberg University Hospital, Germany, has treated its first patient using Monte Carlo photon dose planning in...
Heidelberg University Hospital Treats First Patient Using Carbon Ion Therapy With RayStation
News | Treatment Planning | August 23, 2019
Heidelberg University Hospital, Germany, has started using the RayStation treatment planning system for carbon ion...