Radiation Oncology

Permanent URI for this community

https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/157

Browse

Browsing Radiation Oncology by Author "Balter, Peter"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Fully automatic treatment planning for external-beam radiation therapy of locally advanced cervical cancer : a tool for low-resource clinics
    (American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2019) Kisling, Kelly; Zhang, Lifei; Simonds, Hannah M.; Fakie, Nazia; Yang, Jinzhong; McCarroll, Rachel; Balter, Peter; Burger, Hester; Bogler, Oliver; Howell, Rebecca; Schmeler, Kathleen; Mejia, Mike; Beadle, Beth M.; Jhingran, Anuja; Court, Laurence
    PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to validate a fully automatic treatment planning system for conventional radiotherapy of cervical cancer. This system was developed to mitigate staff shortages in low-resource clinics. METHODS: In collaboration with hospitals in South Africa and the United States, we have developed the Radiation Planning Assistant (RPA), which includes algorithms for automating every step of planning: delineating the body contour, detecting the marked isocenter, designing the treatment-beam apertures, and optimizing the beam weights to minimize dose heterogeneity. First, we validated the RPA retrospectively on 150 planning computed tomography (CT) scans. We then tested it remotely on 14 planning CT scans at two South African hospitals. Finally, automatically planned treatment beams were clinically deployed at our institution. RESULTS: The automatically and manually delineated body contours agreed well (median mean surface dis- tance, 0.6 mm; range, 0.4 to 1.9 mm). The automatically and manually detected marked isocenters agreed well (mean difference, 1.1 mm; range, 0.1 to 2.9 mm). In validating the automatically designed beam apertures, two physicians, one from our institution and one from a South African partner institution, rated 91% and 88% of plans acceptable for treatment, respectively. The use of automatically optimized beam weights reduced the maximum dose significantly (median, −1.9%; P , .001). Of the 14 plans from South Africa, 100% were rated clinically acceptable. Automatically planned treatment beams have been used for 24 patients with cervical cancer by physicians at our institution, with edits as needed, and its use is ongoing. CONCLUSION: We found that fully automatic treatment planning is effective for cervical cancer radiotherapy and may provide a reliable option for low-resource clinics. Prospective studies are ongoing in the United States and are planned with partner clinics.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Radiation planning assistant - a streamlined, fully automated radiotherapy treatment planning system
    (Journal of Visualized Experiments, 2018) Court, Laurence E.; Kisling, Kelly; McCarroll, Rachel; Zhang, Lifei; Yang, Jinzhong; Simonds, Hannah; Du Toit, Monique; Trauernicht, Chris; Burger, Hester; Parkes, Jeannette; Mejia, Mike; Bojador, Maureen; Balter, Peter; Branco, Daniela; Steinmann, Angela; Baltz, Garrett; Gay, Skylar; Anderson, Brian; Cardenas, Carlos; Jhingran, Anuja; Shaitelman, Simona; Bogler, Oliver; Schmeller, Kathleen; Followill, David; Howell, Rebecca; Nelson, Christopher; Peterson, Christine; Beadle, Beth
    The Radiation Planning Assistant (RPA) is a system developed for the fully automated creation of radiotherapy treatment plans, including volume-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for patients with head/neck cancer and 4-field box plans for patients with cervical cancer. It is a combination of specially developed in-house software that uses an application programming interface to communicate with a commercial radiotherapy treatment planning system. It also interfaces with a commercial secondary dose verification software. The necessary inputs to the system are a Treatment Plan Order, approved by the radiation oncologist, and a simulation computed tomography (CT) image, approved by the radiographer. The RPA then generates a complete radiotherapy treatment plan. For the cervical cancer treatment plans, no additional user intervention is necessary until the plan is complete. For head/neck treatment plans, after the normal tissue and some of the target structures are automatically delineated on the CT image, the radiation oncologist must review the contours, making edits if necessary. They also delineate the gross tumor volume. The RPA then completes the treatment planning process, creating a VMAT plan. Finally, the completed plan must be reviewed by qualified clinical staff.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A risk assessment of automated treatment planning and recommendations for clinical deployment
    (American Association of Physicists in Medicine, 2019-06) Kisling, Kelly; Johnson, Jennifer L.; Simonds, Hannah M.; Zhang, Lifei; Jhingran, Anuja; Beadle, Beth M.; Burger, Hester; Du Toit, Monique; Joubert, Nanette; Makufa, Remigio; Shaw, William; Trauernicht, Christoph; Balter, Peter; Howell, Rebecca M.; Schmeler, Kathleen; Court, Laurence
    Purpose: To assess the risk of failure of a recently developed automated treatment planning tool, the radiation planning assistant (RPA), and to determine the reduction in these risks with implementation of a quality assurance (QA) program specifically designed for the RPA. Methods: We used failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) to assess the risk of the RPA. The steps involved in the workflow of planning a four-field box treatment of cervical cancer with the RPA were identified. Then, the potential failure modes at each step and their causes were identified and scored according to their likelihood of occurrence, severity, and likelihood of going undetected. Additionally, the impact of the components of the QA program on the detectability of the failure modes was assessed. The QA program was designed to supplement a clinic's standard QA processes and consisted of three components: (a) automatic, independent verification of the results of automated planning; (b) automatic comparison of treatment parameters to expected values; and (c) guided manual checks of the treatment plan. A risk priority number (RPN) was calculated for each potential failure mode with and without use of the QA program. Results: In the RPA automated treatment planning workflow, we identified 68 potential failure modes with 113 causes. The average RPN was 91 without the QA program and 68 with the QA program (maximum RPNs were 504 and 315, respectively). The reduction in RPN was due to an improvement in the likelihood of detecting failures, resulting in lower detectability scores. The top-ranked failure modes included incorrect identification of the marked isocenter, inappropriate beam aperture definition, incorrect entry of the prescription into the RPA plan directive, and lack of a comprehensive plan review by the physician. Conclusions: Using FMEA, we assessed the risks in the clinical deployment of an automated treatment planning workflow and showed that a specialized QA program for the RPA, which included automatic QA techniques, improved the detectability of failures, reducing this risk. However, some residual risks persisted, which were similar to those found in manual treatment planning, and human error remained a major cause of potential failures. Through the risk analysis process, we identified three key aspects of safe deployment of automated planning: (a) user training on potential failure modes; (b) comprehensive manual plan review by physicians and physicists; and (c) automated QA of the treatment plan.