Evaluation of a hybrid automatic planning solution for rectal cancer

Abstract

Abstract Background Script-based planning and knowledge-based planning are two kinds of automatic planning solutions. Hybrid automatic planning may integrate the advantages of both solutions and provide a more robust automatic planning solution in the clinic. In this study, we evaluated and compared a commercially available hybrid planning solution with manual planning and script-based planning. Methods In total, 51 rectal cancer patients in our institution were enrolled in this study. Each patient generated 7 plans: one clinically accepted manual plan ( $${plan}_{manual}$$ plan manual ), three script-based plans and three hybrid plans generated with the volumetric-modulated arc therapy technique and 3 different clinical goal settings: easy, moderate and hard ( $${plan}_{hybrid}^{easy}$$ plan hybrid easy , $${plan}_{hybrid}^{moderate}$$ plan hybrid moderate , $${plan}_{hybrid}^{hard}$$ plan hybrid hard , $${plan}_{script}^{easy}$$ plan script easy , $${plan}_{script}^{moderate}$$ plan script moderate and $${plan}_{script}^{hard}$$ plan script hard ). Planning goals included planning target volume (PTV) Dmax, bladder Dmean and femur head Dmean. The PTV prescription was the same (50.00 Gy) for the 3 goal settings. The hard setting required a lower PTV Dmax and stricter organ at risk (OAR) dose, while the easy setting was the opposite. Plans were compared using dose metrics and plan quality metric (PQM) scores, including bladder D15 and D50, left and right femur head D25 and D40, PTV D2, D98, CI (conformity index) and HI (homogeneity index). Results Compared to manual planning, hybrid planning with all settings significantly reduced the OAR dose (p < 0.05, paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test) for all dose-volume indices, except D25 of the left femur head. For script-based planning, $${plan}_{script}^{easy}$$ plan script easy significantly increased the OAR dose for the femur head and D2 and the PTV homogeneity index (p < 0.05, paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test). Meanwhile, the maximum dose of the PTV was largely increased with hard script-based planning (D2 = 56.06 ± 7.57 Gy). For all three settings, the comparison of PQM between hybrid planning and script-based planning showed significant differences, except for D25 of the left femur head and PTV D2. The total PQM showed that hybrid planning could provide a better and more robust plan quality than script-based planning. Conclusions The hybrid planning solution was manual-planning comparable for rectal cancer. Hybrid planning can provide a better and more robust plan quality than script-based planning.

Keywords

• Automatic planning
• Hybrid planning
• Script-based planning
• Knowledge-based planning
• Rectal cancer