Original paper| Volume 44, P199-204, December 2017

Dosimetric comparison of RapidPlan and manually optimized plans in volumetric modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer


      • We used 51 previously administered VMAT plans to train a RapidPlan model.
      • Thirty RapidPlan based plans compared with 30 clinical manual optimization plans.
      • RapidPlan based plans were created by a single optimization without intervention.
      • The dose volume parameter values for the PTV were significantly similar.
      • Rectal and bladder doses in RapidPlan based plans were comparable to clinical plans.



      This study evaluated whether RapidPlan based plans (RP plans) created by a single optimization, are usable in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for patients with prostate cancer.


      We used 51 previously administered VMAT plans to train a RP model. Thirty RP plans were created by a single optimization without planner intervention during optimization. Differences between RP plans and clinical manual optimization (CMO) plans created by an experienced planner for the same patients were analyzed (Wilcoxon tests) in terms of homogeneity index (HI), conformation number (CN), D95%, and D2% to planning target volume (PTV), mean dose, V50Gy, V70Gy, V75Gy, and V78Gy to rectum and bladder, monitor unit (MU), and multi-leaf collimator (MLC) sequence complexity.


      RP and CMO values for PTV D95%, PTV D2%, HI, and CN were significantly similar (p < 0.05 for all). RP mean dose, V50Gy, and V70Gy to rectum were superior or comparable to CMO values; RP V75Gy and V78Gy were higher than in CMO plans (p < 0.05). RP bladder dose-volume parameter values (except V78Gy) were lower than in CMO plans (p < 0.05). MU values were RP: 730 ± 55 MU and CMO: 580 ± 37 MU (p < 0.05); and MLC sequence complexity scores were RP: 0.25 ± 0.02 and CMO: 0.35 ± 0.03 (p < 0.05).


      RP plans created by a single optimization were clinically acceptable in VMAT for patient with prostate cancer. Our simple model could reduce optimization time, independently of planner’s skill and knowledge.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Physica Medica: European Journal of Medical Physics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Collaborative Working Group
        Intensity-modulated radiotherapy: current status and issues of interest.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001; 51: 880-914
        • Marks L.B.
        • Yorke E.D.
        • Jackson A.
        • Ten Haken R.K.
        • Constine L.S.
        • Eisbruch A.
        • et al.
        Use of normal tissue complication probability models in the clinic.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010; 76: S9-S10
        • Williams M.J.
        • Bailey M.J.
        • Forstner D.
        • Metcalfe P.E.
        Multicentre quality assurance of intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans: a precursor to clinical trials.
        Australas Radiol. 2007; 51: 472-479
        • Chung H.T.
        • Lee B.
        • Park E.
        • Lu J.J.
        • Xia P.
        Can all centers plan intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) effectively? An external audit of dosimetric comparisons between three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and IMRT for adjuvant chemoradiation for gastric cancer.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008; 71: 1167-1174
        • Yuan L.
        • Ge Y.
        • Lee W.R.
        • Yin F.F.
        • Kirkpatrick J.P.
        • Wu Q.J.
        Quantitative analysis of the factors which affect the interpatient organ-at-risk dose sparing variation in IMRT plans.
        Med Phys. 2012; 39: 6868-6878
        • Tol J.P.
        • Delaney A.R.
        • Dahele M.
        • Slotman B.J.
        • Verbakel W.F.
        Evaluation of a knowledge-based planning solution for head and neck cancer.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015; 91: 612-620
        • Fogliata A.
        • Nicolini G.
        • Clivio A.
        • Vanetti E.
        • Laksar S.
        • Tozzi A.
        • et al.
        A broad scope knowledge based model for optimization of VMAT in esophageal cancer: validation and assessment of plan quality among different treatment centers.
        Radiat Oncol. 2015; 10: 220
        • Wu H.
        • Jiang F.
        • Yue H.
        • Li S.
        • Zhang Y.
        A dosimetric evaluation of knowledge-based VMAT planning with simultaneous integrated boosting for rectal cancer patients.
        J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016; 17: 78-85
        • Wang J.
        • Jin X.
        • Peng J.
        • Xie J.
        • Chen J.
        • Hu W.
        Are simple IMRT beams more robust against MLC error? Exploring the impact of MLC errors on planar quality assurance and plan quality for different complexity beams.
        J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016; 17: 147-157
        • Fogliata A.
        • Belosi F.
        • Clivio A.
        • Navarria P.
        • Nicolini G.
        • Scorsetti M.
        • et al.
        On the pre-clinical validation of a commercial model-based optimization engine: application to volumetric modulated arc therapy for patients with lung or prostate cancer.
        Radiother Oncol. 2014; 113: 385-391
        • Kataria T.
        • Sharma K.
        • Subramani V.
        • Karrthick K.P.
        • Bisht S.S.
        Homogeneity index: an objective tool for assessment of conformal radiation treatments.
        J Med Phys. 2012; 37: 207-213
        • van’t Riet A.
        • Mak A.C.
        • Moerland M.A.
        • Elders L.H.
        • van der Zee W.
        A conformation number to quantify the degree of conformality in brachytherapy and external beam irradiation: application to the prostate.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997; 37: 731-736
        • Masi L.
        • Doro R.
        • Favuzza V.
        • Cipressi S.
        • Livi L.
        Impact of plan parameters on the dosimetric accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy.
        Med Phys. 2013; 40: 071718
        • Oliver M.
        • Ansbacher W.
        • Beckham W.A.
        Comparing planning time, delivery time and plan quality for IMRT, RapidPlan and Tomotherapy.
        J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2009; 10: 117-131
        • Hussein M.
        • South C.P.
        • Barry M.A.
        • Adams E.J.
        • Jordan T.J.
        • Stewart A.J.
        • et al.
        Clinical validation and benchmarking of knowledge-based IMRT and VMAT treatment planning in pelvic anatomy.
        Radiother Oncol. 2016; 120: 473-479
        • Tol J.P.
        • Dahele M.
        • Delaney A.R.
        • Slotman B.J.
        • Verbakel W.F.
        Can knowledge-based DVH predictions be used for automated, individualized quality assurance of radiotherapy treatment plans?.
        Radiat Oncol. 2015; 10: 234
        • Hall E.J.
        • Wuu C.S.
        Radiation-induced second cancers: the impact of 3D-CRT and IMRT.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003; 56: 83-88