Purpose: Our aim was to develop a framework to objectively perform treatment planning studies using Pareto fronts. The Pareto front represents all optimal possible tradeoffs among several conflicting criteria and is an ideal tool with which to study the possibilities of a given treatment technique. The framework should require minimal user interaction and should resemble and be applicable to daily clinical practice.
Methods and materials: To generate the Pareto fronts, we used the native scripting language of Pinnacle(3) (Philips Healthcare, Andover, MA). The framework generates thousands of plans automatically from which the Pareto front is generated. As an example, the framework is applied to compare intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for prostate cancer patients. For each patient and each technique, 3000 plans are generated, resulting in a total of 60,000 plans. The comparison is based on 5-dimensional Pareto fronts.
Results: Generating 3000 plans for 10 patients in parallel requires on average 96 h for IMRT and 483 hours for VMAT. Using VMAT, compared to IMRT, the maximum dose of the boost PTV was reduced by 0.4 Gy (P=.074), the mean dose in the anal sphincter by 1.6 Gy (P=.055), the conformity index of the 95% isodose (CI(95%)) by 0.02 (P=.005), and the rectal wall V(65 Gy) by 1.1% (P=.008).
Conclusions: We showed the feasibility of automatically generating Pareto fronts with Pinnacle(3). Pareto fronts provide a valuable tool for performing objective comparative treatment planning studies. We compared VMAT with IMRT in prostate patients and found VMAT had a dosimetric advantage over IMRT.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.