Application of holographic display in radiotherapy treatment planning II: a multi‐institutional study

We hypothesized that use of a true 3D display providing easy visualization of patient anatomy and dose distribution would lead to the production of better quality radiation therapy treatment plans. We report on a randomized prospective multi‐institutional study to evaluate a novel 3D display for treatment planning. The Perspecta® Spatial 3D System produces 360° holograms by projecting cross‐sectional images on a diffuser screen rotating at 900 rpm. Specially‐developed software allows bi‐directional transfer of image and dose data between Perspecta and the Pinnacle planning system. Thirty‐three patients previously treated at three institutions were included in this IRB‐approved study. Patient data were de‐identified, randomized, and assigned to different planners. A physician at each institution reviewed the cases and established planning objectives. Two treatment plans were then produced for each patient, one based on the Pinnacle system alone and another in conjunction with Perspecta. Plan quality was then evaluated by the same physicians who established the planning objectives. All plans were viewable on both Perspecta and Pinnacle for review. Reviewing physicians were blinded to the planning device used. Data from a 13‐patient pilot study were also included in the analysis. Perspecta plans were considered better in 28 patients (61%), Pinnacle in 14 patients (30%), and both were equivalent in 4 patients. The use of non‐coplanar beams was more common with Perspecta plans (82% vs. 27%). The mean target dose differed by less than 2% between rival plans. Perspecta plans were somewhat more likely to have the hot spot located inside the target (43% vs. 33%). Conversely, 30% of the Pinnacle plans had the hot spot outside the target compared with 18% for Perspecta plans. About 57% of normal organs received less dose from Perspecta plans. No statistically significant association was found between plan preference and planning institution or planner. The study found that use of the holographic display leads to radiotherapy plans preferred in a majority of cases over those developed with 2D displays. These data indicate that continued development of this technology for clinical implementation is warranted. PACS numbers: 87.55.D

[1]  C Shang,et al.  SU‐FF‐T‐117: Can Current Prostate IMRT Be Further Improved with Immersive Virtual Reality Simulation? , 2006 .

[2]  Yunkai Zhang,et al.  3D Display of Treatment Planning and Anatomy Data: Initial Observation Using a Promising Technical Advance , 2007 .

[3]  Darrel G. Hopper,et al.  Cockpit Displays VIII: Displays for Defense Applications , 2001 .

[4]  Larry Davis,et al.  MO‐E‐224C‐03: A 3D Collision Avoidance Tool for External Beam Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning , 2006 .

[5]  David L. Kao,et al.  An evaluation of using real-time volumetric display of 3D ultrasound data for intracardiac catheter manipulation tasks , 2005, Fourth International Workshop on Volume Graphics, 2005..

[6]  Joshua Napoli,et al.  100-million-voxel volumetric display , 2002, SPIE Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[7]  Gregg E. Favalora Volumetric 3D displays and application infrastructure , 2005, Computer.

[8]  P. Maddock Intensity modulated radiation therapy. , 2006, Medicine and health, Rhode Island.

[9]  Mark J. Rivard,et al.  TU‐EE‐A3‐06: Evaluation of a Volumetric Display for Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning , 2006 .

[11]  K. F Van Orden,et al.  Visuospatial task performance as a function of two- and three-dimensional display presentation techniques , 2000 .

[12]  Daniel Patel,et al.  A virtual reality solution for evaluation of radiotherapy plans. , 2007, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[13]  Joshua Napoli,et al.  Spatial 3D infrastructure: display-independent software framework, high-speed rendering electronics, and several new displays , 2005, IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging.

[14]  M. Halle Autostereoscopic displays and computer graphics , 1997, COMG.

[15]  Mark J. Rivard,et al.  2810 : Holographic Image Guided Radiation Therapy (HIGRT) Treatment Planning: a Multi-Institutional Study , 2006 .

[16]  HalleMichael Autostereoscopic displays and computer graphics , 1997 .

[17]  Roger J. Hubbold,et al.  Autostereoscopic display for radiotherapy planning , 1997, Electronic Imaging.

[18]  James Ward,et al.  MO‐D‐230A‐02: An Immersive Virtual Environment for Training of Radiotherapy Students and Developing Clinical Experience , 2006 .