Evaluation of a commercial automatic treatment planning system for prostate cancers

Recent developments in Radiation Oncology treatment planning have led to the development of software packages that facilitate automated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning. Such solutions include site specific modules, plan library methods, and algorithm-based methods. In this study, the plan quality for prostate cancer generated by the Auto-Planning module of the Pinnacle3 radiation therapy treatment planning system (v9.10, Fitchburg, WI) is retrospectively evaluated. The Auto Planning module of Pinnacle3 uses a progressive optimization algorithm. Twenty-three prostate cancer cases, which had previously been planned and treated without lymph node irradiation, were replanned using the Auto-Planning module. Dose distributions were statistically compared with those of manual planning by the paired t-test at 5% significance level. Auto Planning was performed without any manual intervention. Planning target volume (PTV) dose and dose to rectum were comparable between Auto-Planning and manual planning. The former, however, significantly reduced the dose to the bladder and femurs. Regression analysis was performed to examine the correlation between volume overlap between bladder and PTV divided by the total bladder volume and resultant V70. The findings showed that manual planning typically exhibits a logistic way for dose constraint, whereas Auto-Planning shows a more linear tendency. By calculating the Akaike information criterion (AIC) to validate the statistical model, a reduction of interoperator variation in Auto-Planning was shown. We showed that, for prostate cancer, the Auto-Planning module provided plans that are better than or comparable with those of manual planning. By comparing our results with those previously reported for head and neck cancer treatment, we recommend the homogeneous plan quality generated by the Auto-Planning module, which exhibits less dependence on anatomic complexity. (C) 2017 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists.