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

TL;DR

This study investigates the variability in Gamma Knife radiosurgery plan quality for vestibular schwannoma, revealing significant differences among planners and cases, and introduces a method to objectively assess and compare plan quality.

Contribution

The paper presents a novel approach using inverse planning to generate a benchmark 'golden plan' for evaluating manual plan quality and variability in Gamma Knife treatments.

Findings

Large variation in manual plan quality across cases

Inter- and intra-planner variability observed

Manual plan quality often deviates from the benchmark

Abstract

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.