Automation of radiation treatment planning Evaluation of head and neck cancer patient plans created by the Pinnacle3 scripting and Auto-Planning functions

Background Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques are now standard practice. IMRT or volumetric- modulated arc therapy (VMAT) allow treatment of the tumor while simultaneously sparing organs at risk. Nevertheless, treatment plan quality still depends on the physicist's individual skills, experiences, and personal preferences. It would therefore be advantageous to automate the planning process. This possibility is offered by the Pinnacle(3) treatment planning system (Philips Healthcare, Hamburg, Germany) via its scripting language or AutoPlanning (AP) module. Materials and methods AP module results were compared to in-house scripts and manually optimized treatment plans for standard head and neck cancer plans. Multiple treatment parameters were scored to judge plan quality (100 points = optimum plan). Patients were initially planned manually by different physicists and re-planned using scripts or AP. Results and discussion Script-based head and neck plans achieved a mean of 67.0 points and were, on average, superior to manually created (59.1 points) and AP plans (62.3 points). Moreover, they are characterized by reproducibility and lower standard deviation of treatment parameters. Even less experienced staff are able to create at least a good starting point for further optimization in a short time. However, for particular plans, experienced planners perform even better than scripts or AP. Experienced-user input is needed when setting up scripts or AP templates for the first time. Moreover, some minor drawbacks exist, such as the increase of monitor units (+ 35.5% for scripted plans). Conclusion On average, automatically created plans are superior to manually created treatment plans. For particular plans, experienced physicists were able to perform better than scripts or AP; thus, the benefit is greatest when time is short or staff inexperienced.