Planning Benchmark Study for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy of Liver Metastases: Results of the DEGRO/DGMP working group stereotactic radiotherapy and radiosurgery
Standard
Planning Benchmark Study for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy of Liver Metastases: Results of the DEGRO/DGMP working group stereotactic radiotherapy and radiosurgery. / Moustakis, C; Blanck, O; Chan, Mkh; Boda-Heggemann, J; Andratschke, N; Duma, M-N; Albers, D; Bäumer, C; Fehr, R; Körber, S A; Schmidhalter, D; Alraun, M; Baus, W W; Beckers, E; Dierl, M; Droege, S; Ebrahimi Tazehmahalleh, F; Fleckenstein, J; Guckenberger, M; Heinz, C; Henkenberens, C; Hennig, A; Köhn, J; Kornhuber, C; Krieger, T; Loutfi-Krauss, B; Mayr, M; Oechsner, M; Pfeiler, T; Pollul, G; Schöffler, J; Tümmler, H; Ullm, C; Walke, M; Weigel, R; Wertman, M; Wiehle, R; Wiezorek, T; Wilke, L; Wolf, U; Eich, H T; Schmitt, D.
In: INT J RADIAT ONCOL, Vol. 113, No. 1, 01.05.2022, p. 214-227.Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Planning Benchmark Study for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy of Liver Metastases: Results of the DEGRO/DGMP working group stereotactic radiotherapy and radiosurgery
AU - Moustakis, C
AU - Blanck, O
AU - Chan, Mkh
AU - Boda-Heggemann, J
AU - Andratschke, N
AU - Duma, M-N
AU - Albers, D
AU - Bäumer, C
AU - Fehr, R
AU - Körber, S A
AU - Schmidhalter, D
AU - Alraun, M
AU - Baus, W W
AU - Beckers, E
AU - Dierl, M
AU - Droege, S
AU - Ebrahimi Tazehmahalleh, F
AU - Fleckenstein, J
AU - Guckenberger, M
AU - Heinz, C
AU - Henkenberens, C
AU - Hennig, A
AU - Köhn, J
AU - Kornhuber, C
AU - Krieger, T
AU - Loutfi-Krauss, B
AU - Mayr, M
AU - Oechsner, M
AU - Pfeiler, T
AU - Pollul, G
AU - Schöffler, J
AU - Tümmler, H
AU - Ullm, C
AU - Walke, M
AU - Weigel, R
AU - Wertman, M
AU - Wiehle, R
AU - Wiezorek, T
AU - Wilke, L
AU - Wolf, U
AU - Eich, H T
AU - Schmitt, D
N1 - Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2022/5/1
Y1 - 2022/5/1
N2 - PURPOSE: Our purpose was to investigate whether liver stereotactic body radiation therapy treatment planning can be harmonized across different treatment planning systems, delivery techniques, and institutions by using a specific prescription method and to minimize the knowledge gap concerning intersystem and interuser differences. We provide best practice guidelines for all used techniques.METHODS AND MATERIALS: A multiparametric specification of target dose (gross target volume [GTV] D50%, GTV D0.1cc, GTV V90%, planning target volume [PTV] V70%) with a prescription dose of GTV D50% = 3 × 20 Gy and organ-at-risk (OAR) limits were distributed with computed tomography and structure sets from 3 patients with liver metastases. Thirty-five institutions provided 132 treatment plans using different irradiation techniques. These plans were first analyzed for target and OAR doses. Four different renormalization methods were performed (PTV Dmin, PTV D98%, PTV D2%, PTV Dmax). The resulting 660 treatments plans were evaluated regarding target doses to study the effect of dose renormalization to different prescription methods. A relative scoring system was used for comparisons. RESULTS: GTV D50% prescription can be performed in all systems. Treatment plan harmonization was overall successful, with standard deviations for D max, PTV D98%, GTV D98%, and PTV Dmean of 1.6, 3.3, 1.9, and 1.5 Gy, respectively. Primary analysis showed 55 major deviations from clinical goals in 132 plans, whereas in only <20% of deviations GTV/PTV dose was traded for meeting OAR limits. GTV D50% prescription produced the smallest deviation from target planning objectives and between techniques, followed by the PTV Dmax, PTV D98%, PTV D2%, and PTV Dmin prescription. Deviations were significant for all combinations but for the PTV Dmax prescription compared with GTV D50% and PTV D98%. Based on the various dose prescription methods, all systems significantly differed from each other, whereas GTV D50% and PTV D98% prescription showed the least difference between the systems. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed the feasibility of harmonizing liver stereotactic body radiation therapy treatment plans across different treatment planning systems and delivery techniques when a sufficient set of clinical goals is given.
AB - PURPOSE: Our purpose was to investigate whether liver stereotactic body radiation therapy treatment planning can be harmonized across different treatment planning systems, delivery techniques, and institutions by using a specific prescription method and to minimize the knowledge gap concerning intersystem and interuser differences. We provide best practice guidelines for all used techniques.METHODS AND MATERIALS: A multiparametric specification of target dose (gross target volume [GTV] D50%, GTV D0.1cc, GTV V90%, planning target volume [PTV] V70%) with a prescription dose of GTV D50% = 3 × 20 Gy and organ-at-risk (OAR) limits were distributed with computed tomography and structure sets from 3 patients with liver metastases. Thirty-five institutions provided 132 treatment plans using different irradiation techniques. These plans were first analyzed for target and OAR doses. Four different renormalization methods were performed (PTV Dmin, PTV D98%, PTV D2%, PTV Dmax). The resulting 660 treatments plans were evaluated regarding target doses to study the effect of dose renormalization to different prescription methods. A relative scoring system was used for comparisons. RESULTS: GTV D50% prescription can be performed in all systems. Treatment plan harmonization was overall successful, with standard deviations for D max, PTV D98%, GTV D98%, and PTV Dmean of 1.6, 3.3, 1.9, and 1.5 Gy, respectively. Primary analysis showed 55 major deviations from clinical goals in 132 plans, whereas in only <20% of deviations GTV/PTV dose was traded for meeting OAR limits. GTV D50% prescription produced the smallest deviation from target planning objectives and between techniques, followed by the PTV Dmax, PTV D98%, PTV D2%, and PTV Dmin prescription. Deviations were significant for all combinations but for the PTV Dmax prescription compared with GTV D50% and PTV D98%. Based on the various dose prescription methods, all systems significantly differed from each other, whereas GTV D50% and PTV D98% prescription showed the least difference between the systems. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed the feasibility of harmonizing liver stereotactic body radiation therapy treatment plans across different treatment planning systems and delivery techniques when a sufficient set of clinical goals is given.
U2 - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.01.008
DO - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.01.008
M3 - SCORING: Journal article
C2 - 35074434
VL - 113
SP - 214
EP - 227
JO - INT J RADIAT ONCOL
JF - INT J RADIAT ONCOL
SN - 0360-3016
IS - 1
ER -