Dear Authors,
If you believe that your paper was mistakenly rejected by other leading journals and you do not agree with final decision, the editors of Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy offer new fast track review. You may submit your manuscript to Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy together with all prior peer-reviews obtained from the other journal and your rebuttal letter. We guarantee review based decision within 72 hours from the time we will receive your manuscript.

Fast track submission process: Please submit the manuscript with all reviews and rebuttal letter by email to Dr. Michal Masternak (michal.masternak@ucf.edu) for fast review processing. To assure immediate attention the email title must to include: RPOR-fast track- Last Name First Name (of corresponding author).

Volume 22, Number 6, 2017

Software-based evaluation of a class solution for prostate IMRT planning

Sarah Clarke, Josie Goodworth, Justin Westhuyzen, Brendan Chick, ... Stuart Greenham

Summary:

Aim

To use plan analysis software to evaluate a class solution for prostate intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) planning.

Background

Class solutions for radiotherapy planning are increasingly being considered for streamlining planning. Plan analysis software provides an objective approach to evaluating radiotherapy plans.

Materials and methods

Three iterations of a class solution for prostate IMRT planning (T1, T2 and Tfinal) were compared to the clinical plan of 74 prostate patients using radiotherapy plan analysis software (Plan IQ™, Sun Nuclear Corporation). A set of institution-specific plan quality metrics (scores) were established, based on best practice guidelines.

Results

For CTV coverage, Tfinal was not significantly different to the clinical plan. With the exception of 95% PTV coverage, Tfinal metrics were significantly better than the clinical plan for PTV coverage. In the scoring analysis, mean dose, 95% and 107% isodose coverage scores were similar for all the templates and clinical plan. 100% coverage of the CTV clinical plan was similar to Tfinal but scored higher than T1 and T2. There were no significant differences between Tfinal and the clinical plan for the metrics and scores associated with organs at risk. The total plan score was similar for Tfinal and the clinical plan, although the scores for volume receiving total dose outside the PTV were higher for Tfinal than for the clinical plan (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

The radiotherapy plan analysis software was useful for evaluating a class solution for prostate IMRT planning and provided evidence that the class solution produced clinically acceptable plans for these patients.

Signature: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 2017; 22(6) : 441-449


« back

 
INDEXED IN:

Indexed in: EMBASE®, the Excerpta Medica database, the Elsevier BIOBASE (Current Awareness in Biological Sciences) and in the Index Copernicus.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15071367/19/2