Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 30, 2025

Radiation Planning Assistant - A Streamlined, Fully Automated Radiotherapy Treatment Planning System
Published on: April 11, 2018
Comprehensive Comparison of Progressive Optimization Algorithm Based Automatic Plan and Manually Planned Treatment
Yongqiang Zhou1, Xiaojun Xiang2, Jianping Xiong2
1Department of Radiation and Medical Oncology, 89657Wenzhou Medical University 1st Affiliated Hospital, Wenzhou, China.
Purpose:
The purpose of the present study was first to apply the progressive optimization algorithm based automatic volumetric modulated arc therapy (POA-VMAT) technology to accelerate and improve the radiotherapy of cervicothoracic esophageal cancer (CTEC). We comprehensive analyze the feasibility, normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) and dosimetric results of POA-VMAT, manual based VMAT and step-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans in the treatment of CTEC.
Methods:
Sixty patients with CTEC with or without concomitant chemotherapy at our institution between 2017 and 2019 were retrospectively identified. The manual 7field-IMRT (7f-IMRT), Single-arc-VMAT and Double-arc-VMAT (Single-Arc/Double-Arc) plans were generated in all cases. The POA-VMAT was designed using the automatic dual-arc VMAT technology of Pinnacle3 9.10 planning system based on progressive optimization algorithm. Specially, it includes the selection of treatment techniques, the running of automated planning scripts, and the evaluation of the final radiotherapy regimen. Subsequently, quantitative evaluation of plans was performed by means of standard dose-volume histograms, homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI).
Results:
Target dose conformity of the 7f-IMRT plan was inferior to all plans, whereas the Double-Arc plan was slightly inferior to the POA-VMAT but superior to the Single-Arc and 7f-IMRT plan. The HI for 7f-IMRT, Single-Arc, Double-Arc and POA-VMAT were 0.17 ± 0.08, 0.28 ± 0.06, 0.29 ± 0.06 and 0.28 ± 0.03, respectively. For the NTCP results, there was significant statistical difference among POA-VMAT, IMRT and VMAT plans. The total MU was reduced by 48.3% and 42.1% in Single-Arc and POA-VMAT plans compare to IMRT plans.
Conclusions:
By comprehensive consideration, POA-VMAT efficiently generate acceptable treatment plans for CTEC without dose escalation to OARs and overall superior to manual planning which is a good option for treating CTEC.
Related Concept Videos
Combination Therapies and Personalized Medicine
The combination of the drug acetazolamide and sulforaphane is a good example of combination therapy to treat cancer. The cells in the interior of a large tumor often die due to the hypoxic and...
Cancer Survival Analysis
Esophageal Varices-II: Clinical Features and Management
In the initial assessment, a thorough review of the patient's medical history is vital to identify risk factors such as liver disease, alcohol...

