Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Brachytherapy. 2019 May - Jun;18(3):396-403. doi: 10.1016/j.brachy.2018.12.010. Epub 2019 Feb 2.

Evaluation of bi-objective treatment planning for high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy-A retrospective observer study.

Author information

1
Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: s.c.maree@amc.uva.nl.
2
Life Sciences and Health Research Group, Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
3
Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
4
Life Sciences and Health Research Group, Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Algorithmics group, Department of Software Technology, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

Bi-objective treatment planning for high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy is a novel treatment planning method with two separate objectives that represent target coverage and organ-at-risk sparing. In this study, we investigated the feasibility and plan quality of this method by means of a retrospective observer study.

METHODS AND MATERIALS:

Current planning sessions were recorded to configure a bi-objective optimization model and to assess its applicability to our clinical practice. Optimization software, GOMEA, was then used to automatically generate a large set of plans with different trade-offs in the two objectives for each of 18 patients treated with high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy. From this set, five plans per patient were selected for comparison to the clinical plan in terms of satisfaction of planning criteria and in a retrospective observer study. Three brachytherapists were asked to evaluate the blinded plans and select the preferred one.

RESULTS:

Recordings demonstrated applicability of the bi-objective optimization model to our clinical practice. For 14/18 patients, GOMEA plans satisfied all planning criteria, compared with 4/18 clinical plans. In the observer study, in 53/54 cases, a GOMEA plan was preferred over the clinical plan. When asked for consensus among observers, this ratio was 17/18 patients. Observers highly appreciated the insight gained from comparing multiple plans with different trade-offs simultaneously.

CONCLUSIONS:

The bi-objective optimization model adapted well to our clinical practice. GOMEA plans were considered equal or superior to the clinical plans. In addition, presenting multiple high-quality plans provided novel insight into patient-specific trade-offs.

KEYWORDS:

Bi-objective optimization; Brachytherapy; HDR; Observer study; Prostate neoplasm; Treatment planning

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center