skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-G-TeP4-06: An Integrated Application for Radiation Therapy Treatment Plan Directives, Management, and Reporting

Abstract

Purpose: With electronic medical records, patient information for the treatment planning process has become disseminated across multiple applications with limited quality control and many associated failure modes. We present the development of a single application with a centralized database to manage the planning process. Methods: The system was designed to replace current functionalities of (i) static directives representing the physician intent for the prescription and planning goals, localization information for delivery, and other information, (ii) planning objective reports, (iii) localization and image guidance documents and (iv) the official radiation therapy prescription in the medical record. Using the Eclipse Scripting Application Programming Interface, a plug-in script with an associated domain-specific SQL Server database was created to manage the information in (i)–(iv). The system’s user interface and database were designed by a team of physicians, clinical physicists, database experts, and software engineers to ensure usability and robustness for clinical use. Results: The resulting system has been fully integrated within the TPS via a custom script and database. Planning scenario templates, version control, approvals, and logic-based quality control allow this system to fully track and document the planning process as well as physician approval of tradeoffs while improving the consistency of the data.more » Multiple plans and prescriptions are supported along with non-traditional dose objectives and evaluation such as biologically corrected models, composite dose limits, and management of localization goals. User-specific custom views were developed for the attending physician review, physicist plan checks, treating therapists, and peer review in chart rounds. Conclusion: A method was developed to maintain cohesive information throughout the planning process within one integrated system by using a custom treatment planning management application that interfaces directly with the TPS. Future work includes quantifying the improvements in quality, safety and efficiency that are possible with the routine clinical use of this system. Supported in part by NIH-P01-CA-059827.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ; ;  [1]
  1. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22649469
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; COMPUTER CODES; DOSE LIMITS; INTERFACES; MEDICAL RECORDS; PARTICLE TRACKS; PLANNING; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Matuszak, M, Anderson, C, Lee, C, Vineberg, K, Green, M, Younge, K, Moran, J, and Mayo, C. SU-G-TeP4-06: An Integrated Application for Radiation Therapy Treatment Plan Directives, Management, and Reporting. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4957131.
Matuszak, M, Anderson, C, Lee, C, Vineberg, K, Green, M, Younge, K, Moran, J, & Mayo, C. SU-G-TeP4-06: An Integrated Application for Radiation Therapy Treatment Plan Directives, Management, and Reporting. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4957131.
Matuszak, M, Anderson, C, Lee, C, Vineberg, K, Green, M, Younge, K, Moran, J, and Mayo, C. 2016. "SU-G-TeP4-06: An Integrated Application for Radiation Therapy Treatment Plan Directives, Management, and Reporting". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4957131.
@article{osti_22649469,
title = {SU-G-TeP4-06: An Integrated Application for Radiation Therapy Treatment Plan Directives, Management, and Reporting},
author = {Matuszak, M and Anderson, C and Lee, C and Vineberg, K and Green, M and Younge, K and Moran, J and Mayo, C},
abstractNote = {Purpose: With electronic medical records, patient information for the treatment planning process has become disseminated across multiple applications with limited quality control and many associated failure modes. We present the development of a single application with a centralized database to manage the planning process. Methods: The system was designed to replace current functionalities of (i) static directives representing the physician intent for the prescription and planning goals, localization information for delivery, and other information, (ii) planning objective reports, (iii) localization and image guidance documents and (iv) the official radiation therapy prescription in the medical record. Using the Eclipse Scripting Application Programming Interface, a plug-in script with an associated domain-specific SQL Server database was created to manage the information in (i)–(iv). The system’s user interface and database were designed by a team of physicians, clinical physicists, database experts, and software engineers to ensure usability and robustness for clinical use. Results: The resulting system has been fully integrated within the TPS via a custom script and database. Planning scenario templates, version control, approvals, and logic-based quality control allow this system to fully track and document the planning process as well as physician approval of tradeoffs while improving the consistency of the data. Multiple plans and prescriptions are supported along with non-traditional dose objectives and evaluation such as biologically corrected models, composite dose limits, and management of localization goals. User-specific custom views were developed for the attending physician review, physicist plan checks, treating therapists, and peer review in chart rounds. Conclusion: A method was developed to maintain cohesive information throughout the planning process within one integrated system by using a custom treatment planning management application that interfaces directly with the TPS. Future work includes quantifying the improvements in quality, safety and efficiency that are possible with the routine clinical use of this system. Supported in part by NIH-P01-CA-059827.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4957131},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: To develop a practical workflow for retrospectively analyzing target and normal tissue dose–volume endpoints for various intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) delivery techniques; to develop technique-specific planning goals to improve plan consistency and quality when feasible. Methods and Materials: A total of 165 consecutive head-and-neck patients from our patient registry were selected and retrospectively analyzed. All IMRT plans were generated using the same dose–volume guidelines for TomoTherapy (Tomo, Accuray), TrueBeam (TB, Varian) using fixed-field IMRT (TB-IMRT) or RAPIDARC (TB-RAPIDARC), or Siemens Oncor (Siemens-IMRT, Siemens). A MATLAB-based dose–volume extraction and analysis tool was developed to export dosimetric endpoints for eachmore » patient. With a fair stratification of patient cohort, the variation of achieved dosimetric endpoints was analyzed among different treatment techniques. Upon identification of statistically significant variations, technique-specific planning goals were derived from dynamically accumulated institutional data. Results: Retrospective analysis showed that although all techniques yielded comparable target coverage, the doses to the critical structures differed. The maximum cord doses were 34.1 ± 2.6, 42.7 ± 2.1, 43.3 ± 2.0, and 45.1 ± 1.6 Gy for Tomo, TB-IMRT, TB-RAPIDARC, and Siemens-IMRT plans, respectively. Analyses of variance showed significant differences for the maximum cord doses but no significant differences for other selected structures among the investigated IMRT delivery techniques. Subsequently, a refined technique-specific dose–volume guideline for maximum cord dose was derived at a confidence level of 95%. The dosimetric plans that failed the refined technique-specific planning goals were reoptimized according to the refined constraints. We observed better cord sparing with minimal variations for the target coverage and other organ at risk sparing for the Tomo cases, and higher parotid doses for C-arm linear accelerator–based IMRT and RAPIDARC plans. Conclusion: Patient registry–based processes allowed easy and systematic dosimetric assessment of treatment plan quality and consistency. Our analysis revealed the dependence of certain dosimetric endpoints on the treatment techniques. Technique-specific refinement of planning goals may lead to improvement in plan consistency and plan quality.« less
  • Purpose: To investigate inter-fraction differences of dose delivery by analyzing portal images acquired during treatment and implement an automated system to generate a report for each fraction. Large differences in images between fractions can alert the physicist of possible machine performance issues or patient set-up errors. Methods: A Varian Novalis Tx equipped with a HD120 MLC and aS1000 electronic portal imaging device (EPID) was used in our study. EPID images are acquired in continuous acquisition mode for 32 volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) patients. The images are summed to create an image for each arc and a single image for eachmore » fraction. The first fraction is designated as the reference unless a machine error prevented acquisition of all images. The images for each beam as well as the fraction image are compared using gamma analysis at 1%/1mm, 2%/2mm and 3%/3mm. A report is then generated using an in house MatLab program containing the comparison for the current fraction as well as a history of previous fractions. The reports are automatically sent via email to the physicist for review. Fractions in which the total number of images was not within 5% of the reference number of images were not included in the results. Results: 91 of the 182 fractions recorded an image count within 5% of the reference. Gamma averages over all fractions and patients were 96.2% ±0.8% at 3%/3mm, 92.9% ±1% at 2%/2mm and 80.6% ±1.8% at 1%/1mm. The SD between fractions for each patient ranged from .004% to 10.4%. Of the 91 fractions 3 flagged due to low gamma values. After further investigation no significant errors were found. Conclusion: This toolkit can be used for in-vivo monitoring of treatment plan delivery an alert the physics staff of any inter-fraction discrepancies that may require further investigation.« less
  • Purpose: Physics second-checks for external beam radiation therapy are performed, in-part, to verify that the machine parameters in the Record-and-Verify (R&V) system that will ultimately be sent to the LINAC exactly match the values initially calculated by the Treatment Planning System (TPS). While performing the second-check, a large portion of the physicists’ time is spent navigating and arranging display windows to locate and compare the relevant numerical values (MLC position, collimator rotation, field size, MU, etc.). Here, we describe the development of a software tool that guides the physicist by aggregating and succinctly displaying machine parameter data relevant to themore » physics second-check process. Methods: A data retrieval software tool was developed using Python to aggregate data and generate a list of machine parameters that are commonly verified during the physics second-check process. This software tool imported values from (i) the TPS RT Plan DICOM file and (ii) the MOSAIQ (R&V) Structured Query Language (SQL) database. The machine parameters aggregated for this study included: MLC positions, X&Y jaw positions, collimator rotation, gantry rotation, MU, dose rate, wedges and accessories, cumulative dose, energy, machine name, couch angle, and more. Results: A GUI interface was developed to generate a side-by-side display of the aggregated machine parameter values for each field, and presented to the physicist for direct visual comparison. This software tool was tested for 3D conformal, static IMRT, sliding window IMRT, and VMAT treatment plans. Conclusion: This software tool facilitated the data collection process needed in order for the physicist to conduct a second-check, thus yielding an optimized second-check workflow that was both more user friendly and time-efficient. Utilizing this software tool, the physicist was able to spend less time searching through the TPS PDF plan document and the R&V system and focus the second-check efforts on assessing the patient-specific plan-quality.« less
  • Purpose: To compare the plan quality and performance of Simultaneous Integrated Boost (SIB) Treatment plan between Seven field (7F) and Nine field(9F) Intensity Modulated Radiotherapies and Single Arc (SA) and Dual Arc (DA) Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy( VMAT). Methods: Retrospective planning study of 16 patients treated in Elekta Synergy Platform (mlci2) by 9F-IMRT were replanned with 7F-IMRT, Single Arc VMAT and Dual Arc VMAT using CMS, Monaco Treatment Planning System (TPS) with Monte Carlo simulation. Target delineation done as per Radiation Therapy Oncology Protocols (RTOG 0225&0615). Dose Prescribed as 70Gy to Planning Target Volumes (PTV70) and 61Gy to PTV61 inmore » 33 fraction as a SIB technique. Conformity Index(CI), Homogeneity Index(HI) were used as analysis parameter for Target Volumes as well as Mean dose and Max dose for Organ at Risk(OAR,s).Treatment Delivery Time(min), Monitor unit per fraction (MU/fraction), Patient specific quality assurance were also analysed. Results: A Poor dose coverage and Conformity index (CI) was observed in PTV70 by 7F-IMRT among other techniques. SA-VMAT achieved poor dose coverage in PTV61. No statistical significance difference observed in OAR,s except Spinal cord (P= 0.03) and Right optic nerve (P=0.03). DA-VMAT achieved superior target coverage, higher CI (P =0.02) and Better HI (P=0.03) for PTV70 other techniques (7F-IMRT/9F-IMRT/SA-VMAT). A better dose spare for Parotid glands and spinal cord were seen in DA-VMAT. The average treatment delivery time were 5.82mins, 6.72mins, 3.24mins, 4.3mins for 7F-IMRT, 9F-IMRT, SA-VMAT and DA-VMAT respectively. Significance difference Observed in MU/fr (P <0.001) and Patient quality assurance pass rate were >95% (Gamma analysis (Γ3mm, 3%). Conclusion: DA-VAMT showed better target dose coverage and achieved better or equal performance in sparing OARs among other techniques. SA-VMAT offered least Treatment Time than other techniques but achieved poor target coverage. DA-VMAT offered shorter delivery time than 7F-IMRT and 9F-IMRT without compromising the plan quality.« less
  • Purpose: There is potentially a wide variation in plan quality for a certain disease site, even for clinics located in the same system of hospitals. We have used a prostate-specific knowledge-based planning (KBP) model as a quality control tool to investigate the variation in prostate treatment planning across a network of affiliated radiation oncology departments. Methods: A previously created KBP model was applied to 10 patients each from 4 community-based clinics (Clinics A, B, C, and D). The KBP model was developed using RapidPlan (Eclipse v13.5, Varian Medical Systems) from 60 prostate/prostate bed IMRT plans that were originally planned usingmore » an in-house treatment planning system at the central institution of the community-based clinics. The dosimetric plan quality (target coverage and normal-tissue sparing) of each model-generated plan was compared to the respective clinically-used plan. Each community-based clinic utilized the same planning goals to develop the clinically-used plans that were used at the main institution. Results: Across all 4 clinics, the model-generated plans decreased the mean dose to the rectum by varying amounts (on average, 12.5, 2.6, 4.5, and 2.7 Gy for Clinics A, B, C, and D, respectively). The mean dose to the bladder also decreased with the model-generated plans (5.4, 2.3, 3.0, and 4.1 Gy, respectively). The KBP model also identified that target coverage (D95%) improvements were possible for for Clinics A, B, and D (0.12, 1.65, and 2.75%) while target coverage decreased by 0.72% for Clinic C, demonstrating potentially different trade-offs made in clinical plans at different institutions. Conclusion: Quality control of dosimetric plan quality across a system of radiation oncology practices is possible with knowledge-based planning. By using a quality KBP model, smaller community-based clinics can potentially identify the areas of their treatment plans that may be improved, whether it be in normal-tissue sparing or improved target coverage. M. Matuszak has research funding for KBP from Varian Medical Systems.« less