Abstract

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