ESTRO 2022 - Abstract Book

S1471

Abstract book

ESTRO 2022

S. Pallotta 1,2 , L. Marrazzo 3 , C. Silvia 4 , R. Castriconi 5 , C. Fiorino 5 , G. Loi 6 , C. Fiandra 7

1 University of Florence, Biomedical, Experimental and Clinical Sciences “Mario Serio”, Florence, Italy; 2 AOU Careggi, Medical Physics , Florence, Italy; 3 AOU Careggi , Medical Physics, Florence, Italy; 4 University of Florence, Biomedical, Experimental and Clinical Sciences “Mario Serio”, Florence, Italy; 5 San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Medical Physics, Milan, Italy; 6 AOU Maggiore della Carità, Medical Physics, Novara, Italy; 7 University of Turin, Department of Oncology, Turin, Italy Purpose or Objective To improve the efficiency and quality of radiotherapy plan optimization, automated planning (AP) systems were developed. Several publications [1] report on time savings, increased efficiency, and standardization of plans but the actual deployment of these systems is still unknown. This work aims to evaluate the diffusion of AP in Italy and to analyze the perception of the medical physics community involved in radiotherapy regarding the use of these new tools. Materials and Methods Between February and April 2021 an online survey, using Google Forms, was created, and sent by e-mail to a single medical physicist for each Italian radiotherapy centre. 175 physicists were contacted. The survey consisted of 28 questions and was divided into three sections aimed at collecting information on the participating centres, opinions on the use of AP and experience in using AP. For some questions, more than one answer was allowed. Results 125 of the centres (71%) answered the survey. Among these, 48.8% have a TPS with some automatic option but in only 32.8% of the centres, these systems are in clinical use. Among the responding centres, the most used systems are Pinnacle (16.0%), Raystation (8.8%) and Eclipse (4%) All Raystation users make use of a genetic optimizer implemented through advanced phyton scripting. At the top of Fig. 1 is shown the percentage diffusion of different TPSs a), of TPSs with AP b) and of TPSs with AP in clinical use c). At the bottom of Fig.1, is shown the % of centres using AP in varying percentages (less than 5%, between 5% and 10%, 10% and 20%, 20% and 50% and more than 50%) to plan the total amount of IMRT/VMAT plans.

The total number of centres using an automated approach in clinical practice will increase shortly since 10.2% are in the validation phase. In addition, we have identified a growing interest among those who do not currently own such systems. The most frequently cited reason for the unavailability of automated options (32.8%) is the lack of economic resources; 21.9% of responders stated that automated system acquisition has a low priority with respect to other needs. The majority of participants consider the use of automated techniques to be beneficial, while only 1% do not see any advantage; 81% of respondents see the possibility of enriching their professional role as a potential benefit, while 3% see potential threats Fig.2.