Fully automated searching for the optimal VMAT jaw settings based on Eclipse Scripting Application Programming Interface (ESAPI) and RapidPlan knowledge-based planning
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
Purpose: Eclipse treatment planning system has not been able to optimize the jaw positions for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT). The arbitrary and planner-dependent jaw placements define the maximum field size within which multi-leaf-collimator (MLC) sequences can be optimized to modulate the beam. Considering the mechanical constraints of MLC transitional speed and range, suboptimal X jaw settings may impede the optimization or undermine the deliverability. This work searches optimal
... T jaw settings automatically based on Eclipse Scripting Application Programming Interface (ESAPI) and RapidPlan knowledge-based planning. Methods and materials: Using an ESAPI script, the X jaws of rectal VMAT plans were initially set to conform the planning-target-volume (PTV), and were gradually extended toward the isocenter (PTV center) in 5-7 mm increments. Using these jaw pairs, 592 plans were automatically created for 10 patients and quantitatively evaluated using a comprehensive scoring function. A published RapidPlan model was evoked by ESAPI to generate patient-specific optimization objectives without manual intervention. All candidate plans were first stored as text files to save storage space, and only the best, worst, and conformal plans were consequently recreated for comparison. Results: Although RapidPlan estimates dose-volume histogram (DVH) based on individual anatomy, the geometry-based expected dose (GED) algorithm does not recognize different jaw settings but uses PTV-conformal jaws as default; hence, identical DVHs were observed regardless of planner-defined jaws. Therefore, ESAPI finalized dose-volume calculation and eliminated the plans with unacceptable hotspots before comparison. The plan quality varied dramatically with different jaw settings. Trade-offs among different organs-at-risk (OARs) were collectively considered by the proposed scoring method, which identified the best and worst plans correctly. The plans using conformal jaws were neither the best nor the worst of all candidates.