Comparative Study of Auto Plan and Manual Plan for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy.

Abstract

Purpose and ObjectiveAuto planning might reduce the manual time required for the optimization and could also potentially improve the overall plan quality. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the statistical comparison of automatic (AU) and manually (MA) generated nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans.Materials and MethodsThe study included 105 nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients, admitted to our hospital. The patients underwent IMRT treatments. The clinically delivered plans were performed with Eclipse (Version 11.0) using manual optimization. The same plans were optimized successively in PinnacleTM3 (version 9.10) treatment planning system using the auto plan software package module. D95 (dose of 95% volume) and D98 (dose of 98% volume) were calculated for the targets and maximum dose (Dmax) and mean dose (Dmean) for the organ at risks (OARs); moreover, the average doses of each target and OARs for 105 patients were evaluated.ResultsThere is no significant difference in the homogeneity of the target between AU and MA treatment plans, while a significant difference is observed for what is concerning the OARs or most of OARs in 105 patients, OAR doses were significantly reduced in AU plan. For OARs which have no significant difference between AU and MA plans are highlighted, the mean dose of OARs in AU plans was at least not higher than MA plans.ConclusionNasopharyngeal carcinoma IMRT plans made by an automatic planning tool met the clinical requirements for target prescription dose; moreover, the dose of normal tissues was lower than in MA plans. Clinical physicists' time can be saved and the influence of factors such as the lack of experience in treatment planning can be avoided.