Clinical Acceptability of Automated Radiation Treatment Planning for Head and Neck Cancer Using the Radiation Planning Assistant. Practical radiation oncology Olanrewaju, A., Court, L. E., Zhang, L., Naidoo, K., Burger, H., Dalvie, S., Wetter, J., Parkes, J., Trauernicht, C. J., McCarroll, R. E., Cardenas, C., Peterson, C. B., Benson, K. R., du Toit, M., van Reenen, R., Beadle, B. M. 2021


PURPOSE: Radiation treatment planning for head and neck cancer is a complex process with much variability; automated treatment planning is a promising option to improve plan quality and efficiency. This study compared radiation plans generated from a fully automated radiation treatment planning system to plans generated manually that had been clinically approved and delivered.METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study cohort consisted of 50 patients treated by a specialized head and neck cancer team at a tertiary care center. An automated radiation treatment planning system, the Radiation Planning Assistant, was used to create autoplans for all patients using their original, approved contours. Common dose-volume histogram (DVH) criteria were used to compare the quality of autoplans to the clinical plans. Fourteen radiation oncologists, each from a different institution, then reviewed and compared the autoplans and clinical plans in a blinded fashion.RESULTS: Autoplans and clinical plans were very similar with regard to DVH metrics for coverage and critical structure constraints. Physician reviewers found both the clinical plans and autoplans acceptable for use; overall, 78% of the clinical plans and 88% of the autoplans were found to be usable as is (without any edits). When asked to choose which plan would be preferred for approval, 27% of physician reviewers selected the clinical plan, 47% selected the autoplan, 25% said both were equivalent, and 0% said neither. Hence, overall, 72% of physician reviewers believed the autoplan or either the clinical or autoplan was preferable.CONCLUSIONS: Automated radiation treatment planning creates consistent, clinically acceptable treatment plans that meet DVH criteria and are found to be appropriate on physician review.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.prro.2020.12.003

View details for PubMedID 33640315