{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03299856527977044, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01482544237207078, 'mean_word_length': 5.028818443804035, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Knowledge-based planning for oesophageal cancers using a model trained with plans from a different treatment planning system

Abstract Background: This study aimed to evaluate knowledge-based volume modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for oesophageal cancers using a model trained with plans optimised with a different treatment planning system (TPS) and to compare lung dose sparing in two TPSs, Eclipse and RayStation. Materials and methods: A total of 64 patients with stage I–III oesophageal cancers were treated using hybrid VMAT (H-VMAT) plans optimised using RayStation. Among them, 40 plans were used for training the model for knowledge-based planning (KBP) in RapidPlan. The remaining 24 plans were recalculated using RapidPlan to validate the KBP model. H-VMAT plans calculated using RapidPlan were compared with H-VMAT plans optimised using RayStation with respect to planning target volume doses, lung doses, and modulation complexity. Results: In the lung, there were significant differences between the volume ratios receiving doses in excess of 5, 10, and 20 Gy (V5, V10, and V20). The V5 for the lung with H-VMAT plans optimised using RapidPlan was significantly higher than that of H-VMAT plans optimised using RayStation (p < .01), with a mean difference of 10%. Compared to H-VMAT plans optimised using RayStation, the V10 and V20 for the lung were significantly lower with H-VMAT plans optimised using RapidPlan (p = .04 and p = .02), with differences exceeding 1.0%. In terms of modulation complexity, the change in beam output at each control point was more constant with H-VMAT plans optimised using RapidPlan than with H-VMAT plans optimised using RayStation. The range of the change with H-VMAT plans optimised using RapidPlan was one third that of H-VMAT plans optimised using RayStation. Conclusion: Two optimisers in Eclipse and RayStation had different dosimetric performance in lung sparing and modulation complexity. RapidPlan could not improve low lung doses, however, it provided an appreciate intermediated doses compared to plans optimised with RayStation.