Paper detail

An institutional study on plan quality and variation of manual forward planning for Gamma Knife radiosurgery for vestibular schwannoma

Due to the complexity and cumbersomeness of Gamma Knife (GK) manual forward planning, the quality of the resulting treatment plans heavily depends on the planners skill, experience and the amount of effort devoted to plan development. Hence, GK plan quality may vary significantly among institutions and planners, and even for a same planner at different cases. This is particularly a concern for challenging cases with complicated geometry, such as vestibular schwannoma cases. The purpose of this retrospective study is to investigate the plan quality and variation in the manually forward planned, clinically acceptable GK treatment plans of 22 previous vestibular schwannoma cases. Considering the impacts of different patient geometry and different trade-offs among the planning objectives in GK planning, it is difficult to objectively assess the plan quality across different cases. To reduce these confounding factors on plan quality assessment, we employed our recently developed multiresolution-level inverse planning algorithm to generate a golden plan for each case, which is expected to be on or close to the pareto surface with a similar trade-off as used in the manual plan. The plan quality of the manual plan is then quantified in terms of its deviation from the golden plan. A scoring criterion between 0-100 was designed to calculate a final score for each manual plan to simplify our analysis. Large quality variation was observed in these 22 cases, with two cases having a score lower than 75, three cases scoring between 80 and 85, two cases between 85 and 90, eight cases between 90 and 95, and seven cases higher than 95. Inter- and intra- planner variability was also observed in our study. This large variation in GK manual planning deserves high attention, and merits further investigation on how to reduce the variation in GK treatment plan quality.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.