[Quantitative evaluation of radiotherapy plan in precise external beam radiotherapy process management for cervical cancer].
OBJECTIVE
To identify the problems in clinical radiotherapy planning for cervical cancer through quantitative evaluation of the radiotherapy plans to improve the quality of the plans and the radiotherapy process.


METHODS
We selected the clinically approved and administered radiotherapy plans for 227 cervical cancer patients undergoing external radiotherapy at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center from May, 2019 to January, 2022. These plans were transferred from the treatment planning system to the Plan IQTM workstation. The plan quality metrics were determined based on the guidelines of ICRU83 report, the GEC-ESTRO Working Group, and the clinical requirements of our center and were approved by a senior clinician. The problems in the radiotherapy plans were summarized and documented, and those with low scores were re-planned and the differences were analyzed.


RESULTS
We identified several problems in the 277 plans by quantitative evaluation. Inappropriate target volume selection (with scores < 60) in terms of GTV, PGTV (CI) and PGTV (V66 Gy) was found in 10.6%, 65.2%, and 1% of the plans, respectively; and the PGTV (CI), GTV, and PCTV (D98%, HI) had a score of 0 in 0.4%, 10.1%, 0.4%, 0.4% of the plans, respectively. The problems in the organs at risk (OARs) involved mainly the intestines (the rectum, small intestine, and colon), found in 20.7% of the plans, and in occasional cases, the rectum, small intestine, colon, kidney, and the femoral head had a score of 0. Senior planners showed significantly better performance than junior planners in PGTV (V60 Gy, D98%), PCTV (CI), and CTV (D98%) (P≤0.046) especially in terms of spinal cord and small intestine protection (P≤0.034). The bowel (the rectum, small intestine and colon) dose was significantly lower in the prone plans than supine plans (P < 0.05), and targets coverage all met clinical requirements. Twenty radiotherapy plans with low scores were selected for re-planning. The re-planned plans had significantly higher GTV (Dmin) and PTV (V45 Gy, D98%) (P < 0.05) with significantly reduced doses of the small intestines (V40 Gy vs V30 Gy), the colon (V40 Gy vs V30 Gy), and the bladder (D35%) (P < 0.05).


CONCLUSION
Quantitative evaluation of the radiotherapy plans can not only improve the quality of radiotherapy plan, but also facilitate risk management of the radiotherapy process.