↓ Skip to main content

Can knowledge-based DVH predictions be used for automated, individualized quality assurance of radiotherapy treatment plans?

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
113 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Can knowledge-based DVH predictions be used for automated, individualized quality assurance of radiotherapy treatment plans?
Published in
Radiation Oncology, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13014-015-0542-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jim P. Tol, Max Dahele, Alexander R. Delaney, Ben J. Slotman, Wilko F. A. R. Verbakel

Abstract

Treatment plan quality assurance (QA) is important for clinical studies and for institutions aiming to generate near-optimal individualized treatment plans. However, determining how good a given plan is for that particular patient (individualized patient/plan QA, in contrast to running through a checklist of generic QA parameters applied to all patients) is difficult, time consuming and operator-dependent. We therefore evaluated the potential of RapidPlan, a commercial knowledge-based planning solution, to automate this process, by predicting achievable OAR doses for individual patients based on a model library consisting of historical plans with a range of organ-at-risk (OAR) to planning target volume (PTV) geometries and dosimetries. A 90-plan RapidPlan model, generated using previously created automatic interactively optimized (AIO) plans, was used to predict achievable OAR dose-volume histograms (DVHs) for the parotid glands, submandibular glands, individual swallowing muscles and oral cavities of 20 head and neck cancer (HNC) patients using a volumetric modulated (RapidArc) simultaneous integrated boost technique. Predicted mean OAR doses were compared with mean doses achieved when RapidPlan was used to make a new plan. Differences between the achieved and predicted DVH-lines were analyzed. Finally, RapidPlan predictions were used to evaluate achieved OAR sparing of AIO and manual interactively optimized plans. For all OARs, strong linear correlations (R(2) = 0.94-0.99) were found between predicted and achieved mean doses. RapidPlan generally overestimated the amount of achievable sparing for OARs with a large degree of OAR-PTV overlap. RapidPlan QA using predicted doses alone identified that for 50 % (10/20) of the manually optimized plans, sparing of the composite salivary glands, oral cavity or composite swallowing muscles could be improved by at least 3 Gy, 5 Gy or 7 Gy, respectively, while this was the case for 20 % (4/20) AIO plans. These predicted gains were validated by replanning the identified patients using RapidPlan. Strong correlations between predicted and achieved mean doses indicate that RapidPlan could accurately predict achievable mean doses. This shows the feasibility of using RapidPlan DVH prediction alone for automated individualized head and neck plan QA. This has applications in individual centers and clinical trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 133 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 21%
Student > Master 19 14%
Other 18 13%
Researcher 18 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 4%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 27 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 35 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 21%
Engineering 9 7%
Computer Science 5 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 42 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 July 2017.
All research outputs
#6,377,261
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#295
of 2,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,540
of 386,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#8
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,057 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 386,484 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.