Open AccessContour similarity and its implication on inverse prostate SBRT treatment planning
Author(s) -
Yan Chenyu,
Guo Bingqi,
Tendulkar Rahul,
Xia Ping
Publication year - 2023
Publication title -
journal of applied clinical medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.83
H-Index - 48
ISSN - 1526-9914
DOI - 10.1002/acm2.13809
Subject(s) - nuclear medicine , medicine , rectum , radiation treatment planning , prostate , radiation therapy , prostate cancer , medical physics , computer science , radiology , cancer , surgery
Purpose Success of auto‐segmentation is measured by the similarity between auto and manual contours that is often quantified by Dice coefficient (DC). The dosimetric impact of contour variability on inverse planning has been rarely reported. The main aim of this study is to investigate whether automatically generated organs‐at‐risk (OARs) could be used in inverse prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) planning and whether the dosimetric parameters are still clinically acceptable after radiation oncologists modify the OARs. Methods and materials Planning computed tomography images from 10 patients treated with SBRT for prostate cancer were selected and automatically segmented by commercially available atlas‐based software. The automatically generated OAR contours were compared with the manually drawn contours. Two volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans, autoRec‐VMAT (where only automatically generated rectums were used in optimization) and autoAll‐VMAT (where automatically generated OARs were used in inverse optimization) were generated. Dosimetric parameters based on the manually drawn PTV and OARs were compared with the clinically approved plans. Results The DCs for the rectum contours varied from 0.55 to 0.74 with a mean value of 0.665. Differences of D 95 of the PTV between autoRec‐VMAT and manu‐VMAT plans varied from 0.03% to −2.85% with a mean value of −0.64%. Differences of D 0.03cc of manual rectum between the two plans varied from −0.86% to 9.94% with a mean value of 2.71%. D 95 of PTV between autoAll‐VMAT and manu‐VMAT plans varied from 0.28% to −2.9% with a mean value −0.83%. Differences of D 0.03cc of manual rectum between the two plans varied from −0.76% to 6.72% with a mean value of 2.62%. Conclusion Our study implies that it is possible to use unedited automatically generated OARs to perform initial inverse prostate SBRT planning. After radiation oncologists modify/approve the OARs, the plan qualities based on the manually drawn OARs are still clinically acceptable, and a re‐optimization may not be needed.