Multi-institution model (big model) versus single-institution model of knowledge-based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning for prostate cancer
Abstract We established a multi-institution model (big model) of knowledge-based treatment planning with over 500 treatment plans from five institutions in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for prostate cancer. This study aimed to clarify the efficacy of using a large number of registered trea...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Nature Portfolio
2022-09-01
|
| Series: | Scientific Reports |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19498-6 |
| _version_ | 1811211686819921920 |
|---|---|
| author | Jun-ichi Fukunaga Mikoto Tamura Yoshihiro Ueda Tatsuya Kamima Yumiko Shimizu Yuta Muraki Kiyoshi Nakamatsu Hajime Monzen |
| author_facet | Jun-ichi Fukunaga Mikoto Tamura Yoshihiro Ueda Tatsuya Kamima Yumiko Shimizu Yuta Muraki Kiyoshi Nakamatsu Hajime Monzen |
| author_sort | Jun-ichi Fukunaga |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract We established a multi-institution model (big model) of knowledge-based treatment planning with over 500 treatment plans from five institutions in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for prostate cancer. This study aimed to clarify the efficacy of using a large number of registered treatment plans for sharing the big model. The big model was created with 561 clinically approved VMAT plans for prostate cancer from five institutions (A: 150, B: 153, C: 49, D: 60, and E: 149) with different planning strategies. The dosimetric parameters of planning target volume (PTV), rectum, and bladder for two validation VMAT plans generated with the big model were compared with those from each institutional model (single-institution model). The goodness-of-fit of regression lines (R2 and χ2 values) and ratios of the outliers of Cook’s distance (CD) > 4.0, modified Z-score (mZ) > 3.5, studentized residual (SR) > 3.0, and areal difference of estimate (dA) > 3.0 for regression scatter plots in the big model and single-institution model were also evaluated. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) of dosimetric parameters were as follows (big model vs. single-institution model): 79.0 ± 1.6 vs. 78.7 ± 0.5 (D50) and 0.13 ± 0.06 vs. 0.13 ± 0.07 (Homogeneity Index) for the PTV; 6.6 ± 4.0 vs. 8.4 ± 3.6 (V90) and 32.4 ± 3.8 vs. 46.6 ± 15.4 (V50) for the rectum; and 13.8 ± 1.8 vs. 13.3 ± 4.3 (V90) and 39.9 ± 2.0 vs. 38.4 ± 5.2 (V50) for the bladder. The R2 values in the big model were 0.251 and 0.755 for rectum and bladder, respectively, which were comparable to those from each institution model. The respective χ2 values in the big model were 1.009 and 1.002, which were closer to 1.0 than those from each institution model. The ratios of the outliers in the big model were also comparable to those from each institution model. The big model could generate a comparable VMAT plan quality compared with each single-institution model and therefore could possibly be shared with other institutions. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-12T05:16:24Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-d3f6426c7b4b4254902af7c3039dd1ee |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2045-2322 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-12T05:16:24Z |
| publishDate | 2022-09-01 |
| publisher | Nature Portfolio |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Scientific Reports |
| spelling | doaj.art-d3f6426c7b4b4254902af7c3039dd1ee2022-12-22T03:46:37ZengNature PortfolioScientific Reports2045-23222022-09-0112111010.1038/s41598-022-19498-6Multi-institution model (big model) versus single-institution model of knowledge-based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning for prostate cancerJun-ichi Fukunaga0Mikoto Tamura1Yoshihiro Ueda2Tatsuya Kamima3Yumiko Shimizu4Yuta Muraki5Kiyoshi Nakamatsu6Hajime Monzen7Division of Radiology, Department of Medical Technology, Kyushu University HospitalDepartment of Medical Physics, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kindai UniversityDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Osaka International Cancer InstituteRadiation Oncology Department, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer ResearchDepartment of Radiology, Seirei Hamamatsu General HospitalDepartment of Radiology, Seirei Hamamatsu General HospitalDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Kindai UniversityDepartment of Medical Physics, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kindai UniversityAbstract We established a multi-institution model (big model) of knowledge-based treatment planning with over 500 treatment plans from five institutions in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for prostate cancer. This study aimed to clarify the efficacy of using a large number of registered treatment plans for sharing the big model. The big model was created with 561 clinically approved VMAT plans for prostate cancer from five institutions (A: 150, B: 153, C: 49, D: 60, and E: 149) with different planning strategies. The dosimetric parameters of planning target volume (PTV), rectum, and bladder for two validation VMAT plans generated with the big model were compared with those from each institutional model (single-institution model). The goodness-of-fit of regression lines (R2 and χ2 values) and ratios of the outliers of Cook’s distance (CD) > 4.0, modified Z-score (mZ) > 3.5, studentized residual (SR) > 3.0, and areal difference of estimate (dA) > 3.0 for regression scatter plots in the big model and single-institution model were also evaluated. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) of dosimetric parameters were as follows (big model vs. single-institution model): 79.0 ± 1.6 vs. 78.7 ± 0.5 (D50) and 0.13 ± 0.06 vs. 0.13 ± 0.07 (Homogeneity Index) for the PTV; 6.6 ± 4.0 vs. 8.4 ± 3.6 (V90) and 32.4 ± 3.8 vs. 46.6 ± 15.4 (V50) for the rectum; and 13.8 ± 1.8 vs. 13.3 ± 4.3 (V90) and 39.9 ± 2.0 vs. 38.4 ± 5.2 (V50) for the bladder. The R2 values in the big model were 0.251 and 0.755 for rectum and bladder, respectively, which were comparable to those from each institution model. The respective χ2 values in the big model were 1.009 and 1.002, which were closer to 1.0 than those from each institution model. The ratios of the outliers in the big model were also comparable to those from each institution model. The big model could generate a comparable VMAT plan quality compared with each single-institution model and therefore could possibly be shared with other institutions.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19498-6 |
| spellingShingle | Jun-ichi Fukunaga Mikoto Tamura Yoshihiro Ueda Tatsuya Kamima Yumiko Shimizu Yuta Muraki Kiyoshi Nakamatsu Hajime Monzen Multi-institution model (big model) versus single-institution model of knowledge-based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning for prostate cancer Scientific Reports |
| title | Multi-institution model (big model) versus single-institution model of knowledge-based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning for prostate cancer |
| title_full | Multi-institution model (big model) versus single-institution model of knowledge-based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning for prostate cancer |
| title_fullStr | Multi-institution model (big model) versus single-institution model of knowledge-based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning for prostate cancer |
| title_full_unstemmed | Multi-institution model (big model) versus single-institution model of knowledge-based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning for prostate cancer |
| title_short | Multi-institution model (big model) versus single-institution model of knowledge-based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning for prostate cancer |
| title_sort | multi institution model big model versus single institution model of knowledge based volumetric modulated arc therapy vmat planning for prostate cancer |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19498-6 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT junichifukunaga multiinstitutionmodelbigmodelversussingleinstitutionmodelofknowledgebasedvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyvmatplanningforprostatecancer AT mikototamura multiinstitutionmodelbigmodelversussingleinstitutionmodelofknowledgebasedvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyvmatplanningforprostatecancer AT yoshihiroueda multiinstitutionmodelbigmodelversussingleinstitutionmodelofknowledgebasedvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyvmatplanningforprostatecancer AT tatsuyakamima multiinstitutionmodelbigmodelversussingleinstitutionmodelofknowledgebasedvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyvmatplanningforprostatecancer AT yumikoshimizu multiinstitutionmodelbigmodelversussingleinstitutionmodelofknowledgebasedvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyvmatplanningforprostatecancer AT yutamuraki multiinstitutionmodelbigmodelversussingleinstitutionmodelofknowledgebasedvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyvmatplanningforprostatecancer AT kiyoshinakamatsu multiinstitutionmodelbigmodelversussingleinstitutionmodelofknowledgebasedvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyvmatplanningforprostatecancer AT hajimemonzen multiinstitutionmodelbigmodelversussingleinstitutionmodelofknowledgebasedvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyvmatplanningforprostatecancer |