(Sunday, 7/14/2019)
Room: ePoster Forums
Purpose: To determine whether Autoâ?ƒPlanningâ?ƒbased intensity modulated radiation therapy (Aâ?ƒIMRT) planning can improve planning efficiency without compromising plan quality compared with current manual trialâ?ƒandâ?ƒerrorâ?ƒbased intensity modulated radiation therapy (Mâ?ƒ IMRT) planning for patients with cervical cancer.
Methods: Ten postoperative patients with stage â…¢ cervical cancer were enrolled as subjects. The Pinnacle 9.10 planning system was used to design Mâ?ƒIMRT and Aâ?ƒIMRT plans. Plans were evaluated based on the ability to meet the dose volume histogram. The homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), Dmean values of target volume, the dose of organs at risk, treatment monitor units(MUs) and total planning time were compared. The differences were analyzed by paired t-test model.
Results: The results showing that there were no significant differences beween A�IMRT plans and the M�IMRT plans in HI or CI (0.060 vs. 0.061, P = 0.875; 0.915 vs. 0.930, P =0. 104). Compared with the M�IMRT plans, the A�IMRT plans were superior considering decreasing bladder V40 (40 ± 2.5% vs. 38.6 ± 2.1%, P = 0.047) , bowel V30 (38.6 ± 4.5% vs. 35.6 ± 5.5%, P = 0.007), and the V30, Dmean, and D50% of the left and right femoral heads and low‑dose irradiation volume were slightly reduced. The A�IMRT plans had significantly longer total planning time but significantly shorter manual planning time than the M�IMRT plans (45.2 vs. 32.7 min, P = 0.000; 4.5 vs. 16.5 min, P = 0.000) and there were no significant differences in other statistical indexes.
Conclusion: Patients with cervical cancer planning with Aâ?ƒIMRT can get equivalent or superior plan quality compared to Mâ?ƒIMRT plans with substantially shorter manual planning time and improved planning efficiency.
Keywords
Not Applicable / None Entered.
Taxonomy
TH- External beam- photons: treatment planning/virtual clinical studies
Contact Email
