Comparative Study of Eclipse and RayStation Multi-Criteria Optimization-Based Prostate Radiotherapy Treatment Planning Quality

Multi-criteria optimization (MCO) function has been available on commercial radiotherapy (RT) treatment planning systems to improve plan quality; however, no study has compared Eclipse and RayStation MCO functions for prostate RT planning. The purpose of this study was to compare prostate RT MCO pla...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Wong, John YK, Leung, Vincent WS, Hung, Rico HM, Ng, Curtise
Format: Journal Article
Published: MDPI 2024
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/94393
_version_ 1848765867078189056
author Wong, John YK
Leung, Vincent WS
Hung, Rico HM
Ng, Curtise
author_facet Wong, John YK
Leung, Vincent WS
Hung, Rico HM
Ng, Curtise
author_sort Wong, John YK
building Curtin Institutional Repository
collection Online Access
description Multi-criteria optimization (MCO) function has been available on commercial radiotherapy (RT) treatment planning systems to improve plan quality; however, no study has compared Eclipse and RayStation MCO functions for prostate RT planning. The purpose of this study was to compare prostate RT MCO plan qualities in terms of discrepancies between Pareto optimal and final deliverable plans, and dosimetric impact of final deliverable plans. In total, 25 computed tomography datasets of prostate cancer patients were used for Eclipse (version 16.1) and RayStation (version 12A) MCO-based plannings with doses received by 98% of planning target volume having 76 Gy prescription (PTV76 D98%) and 50% of rectum (rectum D50%) selected as trade-off criteria. Pareto optimal and final deliverable plan discrepancies were determined based on PTV76 D98% and rectum D50% percentage differences. Their final deliverable plans were compared in terms of doses received by PTV76 and other structures including rectum, and PTV76 homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI), using a t-test. Both systems showed discrepancies between Pareto optimal and final deliverable plans (Eclipse: −0.89% (PTV76 D98%) and −2.49% (Rectum D50%); RayStation: 3.56% (PTV76 D98%) and −1.96% (Rectum D50%)). Statistically significantly different average values of PTV76 D98%, HI and CI, and mean dose received by rectum (Eclipse: 76.07 Gy, 0.06, 1.05 and 39.36 Gy; RayStation: 70.43 Gy, 0.11, 0.87 and 51.65 Gy) are noted, respectively (p < 0.001). Eclipse MCO-based prostate RT plan quality appears better than that of RayStation.
first_indexed 2025-11-14T11:42:04Z
format Journal Article
id curtin-20.500.11937-94393
institution Curtin University Malaysia
institution_category Local University
last_indexed 2025-11-14T11:42:04Z
publishDate 2024
publisher MDPI
recordtype eprints
repository_type Digital Repository
spelling curtin-20.500.11937-943932024-04-04T08:00:30Z Comparative Study of Eclipse and RayStation Multi-Criteria Optimization-Based Prostate Radiotherapy Treatment Planning Quality Wong, John YK Leung, Vincent WS Hung, Rico HM Ng, Curtise Cancer Gleason Score Organs at Risk Pareto Front Pareto Surface Prostate-Specific Antigen Radiation Therapy Target Volume Toxicity Trade-off Multi-criteria optimization (MCO) function has been available on commercial radiotherapy (RT) treatment planning systems to improve plan quality; however, no study has compared Eclipse and RayStation MCO functions for prostate RT planning. The purpose of this study was to compare prostate RT MCO plan qualities in terms of discrepancies between Pareto optimal and final deliverable plans, and dosimetric impact of final deliverable plans. In total, 25 computed tomography datasets of prostate cancer patients were used for Eclipse (version 16.1) and RayStation (version 12A) MCO-based plannings with doses received by 98% of planning target volume having 76 Gy prescription (PTV76 D98%) and 50% of rectum (rectum D50%) selected as trade-off criteria. Pareto optimal and final deliverable plan discrepancies were determined based on PTV76 D98% and rectum D50% percentage differences. Their final deliverable plans were compared in terms of doses received by PTV76 and other structures including rectum, and PTV76 homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI), using a t-test. Both systems showed discrepancies between Pareto optimal and final deliverable plans (Eclipse: −0.89% (PTV76 D98%) and −2.49% (Rectum D50%); RayStation: 3.56% (PTV76 D98%) and −1.96% (Rectum D50%)). Statistically significantly different average values of PTV76 D98%, HI and CI, and mean dose received by rectum (Eclipse: 76.07 Gy, 0.06, 1.05 and 39.36 Gy; RayStation: 70.43 Gy, 0.11, 0.87 and 51.65 Gy) are noted, respectively (p < 0.001). Eclipse MCO-based prostate RT plan quality appears better than that of RayStation. 2024 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/94393 10.3390/diagnostics14050465 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ MDPI fulltext
spellingShingle Cancer
Gleason Score
Organs at Risk
Pareto Front
Pareto Surface
Prostate-Specific Antigen
Radiation Therapy
Target Volume
Toxicity
Trade-off
Wong, John YK
Leung, Vincent WS
Hung, Rico HM
Ng, Curtise
Comparative Study of Eclipse and RayStation Multi-Criteria Optimization-Based Prostate Radiotherapy Treatment Planning Quality
title Comparative Study of Eclipse and RayStation Multi-Criteria Optimization-Based Prostate Radiotherapy Treatment Planning Quality
title_full Comparative Study of Eclipse and RayStation Multi-Criteria Optimization-Based Prostate Radiotherapy Treatment Planning Quality
title_fullStr Comparative Study of Eclipse and RayStation Multi-Criteria Optimization-Based Prostate Radiotherapy Treatment Planning Quality
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Study of Eclipse and RayStation Multi-Criteria Optimization-Based Prostate Radiotherapy Treatment Planning Quality
title_short Comparative Study of Eclipse and RayStation Multi-Criteria Optimization-Based Prostate Radiotherapy Treatment Planning Quality
title_sort comparative study of eclipse and raystation multi-criteria optimization-based prostate radiotherapy treatment planning quality
topic Cancer
Gleason Score
Organs at Risk
Pareto Front
Pareto Surface
Prostate-Specific Antigen
Radiation Therapy
Target Volume
Toxicity
Trade-off
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/94393