Multi-institutional evaluation of knowledge-based planning performance of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for head and neck cancer

Abstract

PurposeThe aim of this study was to investigate whether additional manual objectives are necessary for the RapidPlan (RP) with a single optimization. We conducted multi-institutional comparisons of plan quality for head and neck cancer (HNC) using the models created at each institute. MethodsThe ability of RP to produce acceptable plans for dose requirements was evaluated in two types of oropharynx cancers at five institutes in Japan. Volumetric modulated arc therapy plans created without (RP plan) and with additional manual objectives (M-RP plan) were compared in terms of planning target volume (PTV), brainstem, spinal cord and parotid glands in dosimetric parameters. ResultsThere were no major dosimetric PTV differences between RP and M-RP plans. For the brainstem and spinal cord in the RP plans, only 40% and 30% of the plans achieved the dose requirements, while the M-RP plans with upper objective added to volume 0% at all institutes achieved them for 90% of the plans. For the L-parotid gland, there was no difference in the RP and M-RP plans (both were 40%) in achieving the acceptable criteria. For the R-parotid gland, 60% and 80% of the RP and M-RP plans achieved the constraint criteria, and in terms of the achievement rate, the RP plans were relatively high. ConclusionsM-RP plans did not require reoptimization; only an upper objective was needed for the brainstem and spinal cord, while the parotid gland dose was reduced in both RP plans with the auto generated line objectives alone.