Dear Authors,
If you believe that your paper was mistakenly rejected by other leading journals and you do not agree with final decision, the editors of Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy offer new fast track review. You may submit your manuscript to Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy together with all prior peer-reviews obtained from the other journal and your rebuttal letter. We guarantee review based decision within 72 hours from the time we will receive your manuscript.

Fast track submission process: Please submit the manuscript with all reviews and rebuttal letter by email to Dr. Michal Masternak (michal.masternak@ucf.edu) for fast review processing. To assure immediate attention the email title must to include: RPOR-fast track- Last Name First Name (of corresponding author).

Volume 21, Number 6, 2016

Prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy planning in seven mouse clicks: Development of a class solution for cancer

Maree Wood, Amara Fonseca, David Sampson, Andrew Kovendy, Justin Westhuyzen, Thomas Shakespeare, Kirsty Turnbull

Summary:

Aim

The aim of the retrospective study was to develop a planning class solution for prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) that achieved target and organs-at-risk (OAR) doses within acceptable departmental protocol criteria using the Monaco treatment planning system (Elekta-CMS Software, MO, USA).

Background

Advances in radiation therapy technology have led to a re-evaluation of work practices. Class solutions have the potential to produce highly conformal plans in a time-efficient manner.

Materials and Methods

Using data from intermediate and high risk prostate cancer patients, a stepwise quality improvement model was employed. Stage 1 involved the development of a broadly based treatment template developed across 10 patients. Stage 2 involved template refinement and clinical audit (n = 20); Stage 3, template review (n = 50) and Stage 4 an assessment of a revised template against the actual treatment plan involving 72 patients.

Results

The computer algorithm that comprised the Stage 4 template met clinical treatment criteria for 82% of patients. Minor template changes were required for a further 13% of patients. Major changes were required in 4%; one patient could not be assessed. The average calculation time was 13 min and involved seven mouse clicks by the planner. Thus, the new template met treatment criteria or required only minor changes in 95% of prostate patients; this is an encouraging result suggesting improvements in planning efficiency and consistency.

Conclusion

It is feasible to develop a class solution for prostate IMRT using a stepwise quality improvement model which delivers clinically acceptable plans in the great majority of prostate cases.

Signature: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 2016; 21(6) : 567-570


« back

 
INDEXED IN:

Indexed in: EMBASE®, the Excerpta Medica database, the Elsevier BIOBASE (Current Awareness in Biological Sciences) and in the Index Copernicus.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15071367/19/2