Cross-institutional knowledge-based planning (KBP) implementation and its performance comparison to Auto-Planning Engine (APE)

Binbin Wu, Martijn Kusters, Martina Kunze-busch, Tim Dijkema, Todd McNutt, Giuseppe Sanguineti, Karl Bzdusek, Anatoly Dritschilo, Dalong Pang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background and purpose To investigate (1) whether a plan library established at one institution can be applied for another institution's knowledge-based planning (KBP); (2) the performance of cross-institutional KBP compared to Auto-Planning Engine (APE). Material and methods Radboud University Medical Center (RUMC) provided 35 oropharyngeal cancer patients (68 Gy to PTV68 and 50.3 Gy to PTV50.3) with clinically-delivered and comparative APE plans. The Johns Hopkins University (JHU) contributed a three-dose-level plan library consisting of 179 clinically-delivered plans. MedStar Georgetown University Hospital (MGUH) contributed a KBP approach employing overlap-volume histogram (OVH-KBP), where the JHU library was used for guiding RUMC patients’ KBP. Since clinical protocols adopted at RUMC and JHU are different and both approaches require protocol-specific planning parameters as initial input, 10 randomly selected patients from RUMC were set aside for deriving them. The finalized parameters were applied to the remaining 25 patients for OVH-KBP and APE plan generation. A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for statistical comparison. Results PTV68 and PTV50.3’s V95 in OVH-KBP and APE were similar (p > 0.36). Cord's D0.1 cc in OVH-KBP was reduced by 5.1 Gy (p = 0.0001); doses to other organs were similar (p > 0.2). Conclusion APE and OVH-KBP's plan quality is comparable. Institutional-protocol differences can be addressed to allow cross-institutional library sharing.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)57-62
Number of pages6
JournalRadiotherapy and Oncology
Volume123
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2017

Fingerprint

Libraries
Nonparametric Statistics
Oropharyngeal Neoplasms
Clinical Protocols

Keywords

  • APE
  • IMRT
  • KBP
  • OVH

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hematology
  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Cross-institutional knowledge-based planning (KBP) implementation and its performance comparison to Auto-Planning Engine (APE). / Wu, Binbin; Kusters, Martijn; Kunze-busch, Martina; Dijkema, Tim; McNutt, Todd; Sanguineti, Giuseppe; Bzdusek, Karl; Dritschilo, Anatoly; Pang, Dalong.

In: Radiotherapy and Oncology, Vol. 123, No. 1, 01.04.2017, p. 57-62.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wu, B, Kusters, M, Kunze-busch, M, Dijkema, T, McNutt, T, Sanguineti, G, Bzdusek, K, Dritschilo, A & Pang, D 2017, 'Cross-institutional knowledge-based planning (KBP) implementation and its performance comparison to Auto-Planning Engine (APE)', Radiotherapy and Oncology, vol. 123, no. 1, pp. 57-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2017.01.012
Wu, Binbin ; Kusters, Martijn ; Kunze-busch, Martina ; Dijkema, Tim ; McNutt, Todd ; Sanguineti, Giuseppe ; Bzdusek, Karl ; Dritschilo, Anatoly ; Pang, Dalong. / Cross-institutional knowledge-based planning (KBP) implementation and its performance comparison to Auto-Planning Engine (APE). In: Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2017 ; Vol. 123, No. 1. pp. 57-62.
@article{f1a696c451d1406c83eb2f6b9cf6ada2,
title = "Cross-institutional knowledge-based planning (KBP) implementation and its performance comparison to Auto-Planning Engine (APE)",
abstract = "Background and purpose To investigate (1) whether a plan library established at one institution can be applied for another institution's knowledge-based planning (KBP); (2) the performance of cross-institutional KBP compared to Auto-Planning Engine (APE). Material and methods Radboud University Medical Center (RUMC) provided 35 oropharyngeal cancer patients (68 Gy to PTV68 and 50.3 Gy to PTV50.3) with clinically-delivered and comparative APE plans. The Johns Hopkins University (JHU) contributed a three-dose-level plan library consisting of 179 clinically-delivered plans. MedStar Georgetown University Hospital (MGUH) contributed a KBP approach employing overlap-volume histogram (OVH-KBP), where the JHU library was used for guiding RUMC patients’ KBP. Since clinical protocols adopted at RUMC and JHU are different and both approaches require protocol-specific planning parameters as initial input, 10 randomly selected patients from RUMC were set aside for deriving them. The finalized parameters were applied to the remaining 25 patients for OVH-KBP and APE plan generation. A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for statistical comparison. Results PTV68 and PTV50.3’s V95 in OVH-KBP and APE were similar (p > 0.36). Cord's D0.1 cc in OVH-KBP was reduced by 5.1 Gy (p = 0.0001); doses to other organs were similar (p > 0.2). Conclusion APE and OVH-KBP's plan quality is comparable. Institutional-protocol differences can be addressed to allow cross-institutional library sharing.",
keywords = "APE, IMRT, KBP, OVH",
author = "Binbin Wu and Martijn Kusters and Martina Kunze-busch and Tim Dijkema and Todd McNutt and Giuseppe Sanguineti and Karl Bzdusek and Anatoly Dritschilo and Dalong Pang",
year = "2017",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.radonc.2017.01.012",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "123",
pages = "57--62",
journal = "Radiotherapy and Oncology",
issn = "0167-8140",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cross-institutional knowledge-based planning (KBP) implementation and its performance comparison to Auto-Planning Engine (APE)

AU - Wu, Binbin

AU - Kusters, Martijn

AU - Kunze-busch, Martina

AU - Dijkema, Tim

AU - McNutt, Todd

AU - Sanguineti, Giuseppe

AU - Bzdusek, Karl

AU - Dritschilo, Anatoly

AU - Pang, Dalong

PY - 2017/4/1

Y1 - 2017/4/1

N2 - Background and purpose To investigate (1) whether a plan library established at one institution can be applied for another institution's knowledge-based planning (KBP); (2) the performance of cross-institutional KBP compared to Auto-Planning Engine (APE). Material and methods Radboud University Medical Center (RUMC) provided 35 oropharyngeal cancer patients (68 Gy to PTV68 and 50.3 Gy to PTV50.3) with clinically-delivered and comparative APE plans. The Johns Hopkins University (JHU) contributed a three-dose-level plan library consisting of 179 clinically-delivered plans. MedStar Georgetown University Hospital (MGUH) contributed a KBP approach employing overlap-volume histogram (OVH-KBP), where the JHU library was used for guiding RUMC patients’ KBP. Since clinical protocols adopted at RUMC and JHU are different and both approaches require protocol-specific planning parameters as initial input, 10 randomly selected patients from RUMC were set aside for deriving them. The finalized parameters were applied to the remaining 25 patients for OVH-KBP and APE plan generation. A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for statistical comparison. Results PTV68 and PTV50.3’s V95 in OVH-KBP and APE were similar (p > 0.36). Cord's D0.1 cc in OVH-KBP was reduced by 5.1 Gy (p = 0.0001); doses to other organs were similar (p > 0.2). Conclusion APE and OVH-KBP's plan quality is comparable. Institutional-protocol differences can be addressed to allow cross-institutional library sharing.

AB - Background and purpose To investigate (1) whether a plan library established at one institution can be applied for another institution's knowledge-based planning (KBP); (2) the performance of cross-institutional KBP compared to Auto-Planning Engine (APE). Material and methods Radboud University Medical Center (RUMC) provided 35 oropharyngeal cancer patients (68 Gy to PTV68 and 50.3 Gy to PTV50.3) with clinically-delivered and comparative APE plans. The Johns Hopkins University (JHU) contributed a three-dose-level plan library consisting of 179 clinically-delivered plans. MedStar Georgetown University Hospital (MGUH) contributed a KBP approach employing overlap-volume histogram (OVH-KBP), where the JHU library was used for guiding RUMC patients’ KBP. Since clinical protocols adopted at RUMC and JHU are different and both approaches require protocol-specific planning parameters as initial input, 10 randomly selected patients from RUMC were set aside for deriving them. The finalized parameters were applied to the remaining 25 patients for OVH-KBP and APE plan generation. A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for statistical comparison. Results PTV68 and PTV50.3’s V95 in OVH-KBP and APE were similar (p > 0.36). Cord's D0.1 cc in OVH-KBP was reduced by 5.1 Gy (p = 0.0001); doses to other organs were similar (p > 0.2). Conclusion APE and OVH-KBP's plan quality is comparable. Institutional-protocol differences can be addressed to allow cross-institutional library sharing.

KW - APE

KW - IMRT

KW - KBP

KW - OVH

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85011960937&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85011960937&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.01.012

DO - 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.01.012

M3 - Article

VL - 123

SP - 57

EP - 62

JO - Radiotherapy and Oncology

JF - Radiotherapy and Oncology

SN - 0167-8140

IS - 1

ER -