title: Advantages and limitations of navigation-based multicriteria optimization (MCO) for localized prostate cancer IMRT planning.
abstract: Efficacy of inverse planning is becoming increasingly important for advanced radiotherapy techniques. This study's aims were to validate multicriteria optimization (MCO) in RayStation (v2.4, RaySearch Laboratories, Sweden) against standard intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) optimization in Oncentra (v4.1, Nucletron BV, the Netherlands) and characterize dose differences due to conversion of navigated MCO plans into deliverable multileaf collimator apertures. Step-and-shoot IMRT plans were created for 10 patients with localized prostate cancer using both standard optimization and MCO. Acceptable standard IMRT plans with minimal average rectal dose were chosen for comparison with deliverable MCO plans. The trade-off was, for the MCO plans, managed through a user interface that permits continuous navigation between fluence-based plans. Navigated MCO plans were made deliverable at incremental steps along a trajectory between maximal target homogeneity and maximal rectal sparing. Dosimetric differences between navigated and deliverable MCO plans were also quantified. MCO plans, chosen as acceptable under navigated and deliverable conditions resulted in similar rectal sparing compared with standard optimization (33.7 ± 1.8 Gy vs 35.5 ± 4.2 Gy, p = 0.117). The dose differences between navigated and deliverable MCO plans increased as higher priority was placed on rectal avoidance. If the best possible deliverable MCO was chosen, a significant reduction in rectal dose was observed in comparison with standard optimization (30.6 ± 1.4 Gy vs 35.5 ± 4.2 Gy, p = 0.047). Improvements were, however, to some extent, at the expense of less conformal dose distributions, which resulted in significantly higher doses to the bladder for 2 of the 3 tolerance levels. In conclusion, similar IMRT plans can be created for patients with prostate cancer using MCO compared with standard optimization. Limitations exist within MCO regarding conversion of navigated plans to deliverable apertures, particularly for plans that emphasize avoidance of critical structures. Minimizing these differences would result in better quality treatments for patients with prostate cancer who were treated with radiotherapy using MCO plans.
authors.affiliation: Radiotherapy Physics, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK. Electronic address: conor.mcgarry@belfasttrust.hscni.net.
authors.forename: Conor K
authors.initials: CK
authors.lastname: McGarry
authors.affiliation: Optimization and Systems Theory, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden; RaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden.
authors.forename: Rasmus
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Bokrantz
authors.affiliation: Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK; Clinical Oncology, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK.
authors.forename: Joe M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: O'Sullivan
authors.affiliation: Radiotherapy Physics, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK; Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK.
authors.forename: Alan R
authors.initials: AR
authors.lastname: Hounsell
mesh_terms: D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted; D050397:Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated
keywords: IMRT; MCO; Prostate