Comparative Study of Plan Robustness for Breast Radiotherapy: Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Plans with Robust Optimization versus Manual Flash Approach

A previous study investigated robustness of manual flash (MF) and robust optimized (RO) volumetric modulated arc therapy plans for breast radiotherapy based on five patients in 2020 and indicated that the RO was more robust than the MF, although the MF is still current standard practice. The purpose...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Chan, Ray CK, Ng, Curtise, Hung, Rico HM, Li, Yoyo TY, Tam, Yuki TY, Wong, Blossom YL, Yu, Jacky CK, Leung, Vincent WS
Other Authors: Mozdarani, Hossein
Format: Journal Article
Published: MDPI AG 2023
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/93701
_version_ 1848765767493877760
author Chan, Ray CK
Ng, Curtise
Hung, Rico HM
Li, Yoyo TY
Tam, Yuki TY
Wong, Blossom YL
Yu, Jacky CK
Leung, Vincent WS
author2 Mozdarani, Hossein
author_facet Mozdarani, Hossein
Chan, Ray CK
Ng, Curtise
Hung, Rico HM
Li, Yoyo TY
Tam, Yuki TY
Wong, Blossom YL
Yu, Jacky CK
Leung, Vincent WS
author_sort Chan, Ray CK
building Curtin Institutional Repository
collection Online Access
description A previous study investigated robustness of manual flash (MF) and robust optimized (RO) volumetric modulated arc therapy plans for breast radiotherapy based on five patients in 2020 and indicated that the RO was more robust than the MF, although the MF is still current standard practice. The purpose of this study was to compare their plan robustness in terms of dose variation to clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk (OARs) based on a larger sample size. This was a retrospective study involving 34 female patients. Their plan robustness was evaluated based on measured volume/dose difference between nominal and worst scenarios (ΔV/ΔD) for each CTV and OARs parameter, with a smaller difference representing greater robustness. Paired sample t-test was used to compare their robustness values. All parameters (except CTV ΔD98%) of the RO approach had smaller ΔV/ΔD values than those of the MF. Also, the RO approach had statistically significantly smaller ΔV/ΔD values (p < 0.001–0.012) for all CTV parameters except the CTV ΔV95% and ΔD98% and heart ΔDmean. This study’s results confirm that the RO approach was more robust than the MF in general. Although both techniques were able to generate clinically acceptable plans for breast radiotherapy, the RO could potentially improve workflow efficiency due to its simpler planning process.
first_indexed 2025-11-14T11:40:29Z
format Journal Article
id curtin-20.500.11937-93701
institution Curtin University Malaysia
institution_category Local University
last_indexed 2025-11-14T11:40:29Z
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI AG
recordtype eprints
repository_type Digital Repository
spelling curtin-20.500.11937-937012023-11-21T01:06:42Z Comparative Study of Plan Robustness for Breast Radiotherapy: Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Plans with Robust Optimization versus Manual Flash Approach Chan, Ray CK Ng, Curtise Hung, Rico HM Li, Yoyo TY Tam, Yuki TY Wong, Blossom YL Yu, Jacky CK Leung, Vincent WS Mozdarani, Hossein Cancer Chest Wall Displacement Dosimetry Error Organs at Risk Radiation Dose Radiation Therapy Skin Flash Target Volume Uncertainty A previous study investigated robustness of manual flash (MF) and robust optimized (RO) volumetric modulated arc therapy plans for breast radiotherapy based on five patients in 2020 and indicated that the RO was more robust than the MF, although the MF is still current standard practice. The purpose of this study was to compare their plan robustness in terms of dose variation to clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk (OARs) based on a larger sample size. This was a retrospective study involving 34 female patients. Their plan robustness was evaluated based on measured volume/dose difference between nominal and worst scenarios (ΔV/ΔD) for each CTV and OARs parameter, with a smaller difference representing greater robustness. Paired sample t-test was used to compare their robustness values. All parameters (except CTV ΔD98%) of the RO approach had smaller ΔV/ΔD values than those of the MF. Also, the RO approach had statistically significantly smaller ΔV/ΔD values (p < 0.001–0.012) for all CTV parameters except the CTV ΔV95% and ΔD98% and heart ΔDmean. This study’s results confirm that the RO approach was more robust than the MF in general. Although both techniques were able to generate clinically acceptable plans for breast radiotherapy, the RO could potentially improve workflow efficiency due to its simpler planning process. 2023 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/93701 10.3390/diagnostics13223395 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ MDPI AG fulltext
spellingShingle Cancer
Chest Wall Displacement
Dosimetry
Error
Organs at Risk
Radiation Dose
Radiation Therapy
Skin Flash
Target Volume
Uncertainty
Chan, Ray CK
Ng, Curtise
Hung, Rico HM
Li, Yoyo TY
Tam, Yuki TY
Wong, Blossom YL
Yu, Jacky CK
Leung, Vincent WS
Comparative Study of Plan Robustness for Breast Radiotherapy: Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Plans with Robust Optimization versus Manual Flash Approach
title Comparative Study of Plan Robustness for Breast Radiotherapy: Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Plans with Robust Optimization versus Manual Flash Approach
title_full Comparative Study of Plan Robustness for Breast Radiotherapy: Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Plans with Robust Optimization versus Manual Flash Approach
title_fullStr Comparative Study of Plan Robustness for Breast Radiotherapy: Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Plans with Robust Optimization versus Manual Flash Approach
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Study of Plan Robustness for Breast Radiotherapy: Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Plans with Robust Optimization versus Manual Flash Approach
title_short Comparative Study of Plan Robustness for Breast Radiotherapy: Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Plans with Robust Optimization versus Manual Flash Approach
title_sort comparative study of plan robustness for breast radiotherapy: volumetric modulated arc therapy plans with robust optimization versus manual flash approach
topic Cancer
Chest Wall Displacement
Dosimetry
Error
Organs at Risk
Radiation Dose
Radiation Therapy
Skin Flash
Target Volume
Uncertainty
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/93701