Room: ePoster Forums
Purpose: To evaluate the progressive optimization algorithm-based Auto-Planning module of PinnacleÂ³9.10 treatment planning system (TPS) whether can effectively reduce the difference in the plan quality caused by the lack of experience of the dosimetrist compared with the manual plan for the middle thoracic esophageal carcinoma.
Methods: Ten patients with middle thoracic esophageal carcinoma were selected, and Manual-IMRT(T(M))and Auto-IMRT(T(N)) were designed separately. The initial conditions were adjusted to make the two planned parameters basically the same. Increasing the 50% of two plans heart and lung dose limits to generate New Manual-IMRT(T(NM)) and New Auto-IMRT(T(NA)) . The differences in conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) of target, as well as dose volume histogram (DVH) of organs at risk (OAR) were compared between New Manual-IMRT(T(NM)) and New Auto-IMRT(T(NA)) . The differences were analyzed by paired t test.
Results: The values of the parameters in the T(M) and T(A) comparison groups were similar, and there was no statistical difference. Compared with the T(NM) plans, the Vâ‚‚â‚€ã€?Vâ‚ƒâ‚€ of the lung were significantly reduced by 1.47% and 1.34%, respectively, in the T(NA) plans (P=0.031, 0.042), The mean dose for the lung decreased 0.445Gy(P=0.046) and the mean heart dose decreased 1.434Gy(P=0.002) by using Auto-Planning. The conformance index of targets was superior in the T(NA) than in T(NM)(P=0.026), but the homogeneity index of targets was inferior in the T(NA) than in T(NM)(P=0.013).
Conclusion: Auto-Planning module can effectively reduce the difference in the plan quality caused by the lack of experience of the dosimetrist. And as a high-quality starting point for further planning optimization, This makes it possible for the dosimetrist to focus more time on difficult dose planning goals and improve the overall quality and consistency of treatment plans.