Multi-Institutional Randomized Study to Evaluate a Holographic Display Device for Treatment Planning

J Chu,Xiaojin Gong,Can Cai,Thomas Zusag,Susan Shott,MJ Rivard,Christopher S. Melhus,Gene A. Cardarelli,Amanda A. Hurley,Jaroslaw T. Hepel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.07.2072

2007-01-01

Abstract:People use a variety of depth cues to perceive the 3D nature of their environment. Multiplanar 2D and pseudo 3D displays on a flat computer screen provide only limited depth cues and therefore may not readily present the 3 dimensionality of an object. We hypothesize that a true 3D display providing easy visualization of patient anatomy and dose distribution will lead to the production of better quality radiation therapy treatment plans. To test this hypothesis, we have conducted a randomized prospective multi-institutional study using a novel 3D display. The PerspectaRAD device produces 360° holograms by projecting cross-sectional images on a diffuser screen rotating at 900 rpm. The system displays nearly 4 billion voxels per second and uses a 3D mouse to define points of interests within the display. Specially developed software allows bi-directional transfer of image and dose data between PerspectaRAD and the Pinnacle planning system. Thirty-three patients previously treated at three institutions were included in this treatment planning study. Patient data were deidentified, randomized, and assigned to different planners at three institutions. A physician at each institution reviewed the cases and established planning objectives before planning. Two treatment plans were then produced for each patient, one based on the Pinnacle system alone and another produced in conjunction with PerspectaRAD. Two different planners were used for each patient to reduce bias. Plan quality was then evaluated by the same physicians who established the planning objectives. All plans were viewable on PerspectaRAD and Pinnacle for review. DVH and equivalent uniform dose (EUD) for various ROIs were calculated as metrics for comparison. Reviewing physicians were blinded to the planning device used. Data from a nine-patient pilot study were also included in the analysis. PerspectaRAD plans were considered better in 25 patients (60%), worse in 13 patients (31%), and equivalent in 4 cases (p < 0.001). Better plans usually delivered lower doses to critical organs. For example, those PerspectaRAD plans identified as better may achieve lower EUD to the optical chiasm (up to 34%), bladder (up to 17%), liver (up to 10%), kidney (up to 30%), and lung (up to 40%). The mean NEUD (EUD normalized to prescription dose) for CTV differed by less than 1%, indicating similar target coverage between rival plans. No statistically significant association was found between plan preference and planning institution or planner. The prospective randomized study found that use of the holographic display may lead to better plans in radiation therapy treatment planning. These data indicate that continued development of this technology for clinical implementation is warranted.