Class solution for inversely planned permanent prostate implants to mimic an experienced dosimetrist.
The purpose of this paper is to present a method for the selection of inverse planning parameters and to establish a set of inverse planning parameters (class solution) for the inverse planning included in a commercial permanent prostate implant treatment planning system. The manual planning of more than 750 patients since 1996 led to the establishment of general treatment planning rules. A class solution is tuned to fulfill the treatment planning rules and generate equivalent implants. For ten patients, the inverse planning is compared with manual planning performed by our experienced physicist. The prostate volumes ranged from 17 to 51 cc and are implanted with low activity 1-125 seeds. Dosimetric indices are calculated for comparison. The inverse planning needed about 15 s for each optimization (400 000 iterations on a 2.5 GHz PC). In comparison, the physicist needed about 20 min to perform each manual plan. A class solution is found that consistently produces dosimetric indices equivalent or better than the manual planning. Moreover, even with strict seed placement rules, the inverse planning can produce adequate prostate dose coverage and organ at risk protection. The inverse planning avoids implant with seeds outside of the prostate and too close to the urethra. It also avoids needles with only one seed and needles with three consecutive seeds. This reduces the risk of complication due to seed misplacement and edema. The inverse planning also uses a smaller number of needles, reducing the cause of trauma. The quality of the treatment plans is independent of the gland size and shape. A class solution is established that consistently and rapidly produces equivalent dosimetric indices as manual planning while respecting severe seed placement rules. The class solution can be used as a starting point for every patient, dramatically reducing the time needed to plan individual patient treatments. The class solution works with inverse preplanning, intraoperative inverse preplanning, and intraoperative real-time planning. This technology is not intended to replace the physicist but to accelerate the planning process, making intraoperative treatment planning more effective.
Lessard
Etienne
E
UCSF Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California 94143-1708, USA. lessard@radonc17.ucsf.edu
Kwa
Stefan L S
SL
Pickett
Barby
B
Roach
Mach
M
Pouliot
Jean
J
D000465:Algorithms; D001822:Body Burden; D001918:Brachytherapy / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D003198:Computer Simulation; D005103:Expert Systems; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008954:Models, Biological; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D011874:Radiometry / Q000379:methods*; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*; D012062:Relative Biological Effectiveness; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D018570:Risk Assessment / Q000379:methods; D012307:Risk Factors; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity