Development of an Ultra-Fast, High-Quality Whole-Breast Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning System

Artificial Intelligence in Radiotherapy Treatment Planning: Present and Future

Treatment planning is an essential step of the radiotherapy workflow. It has become more sophisticated over the past couple of decades with the help of computer science, enabling planners to design highly complex radiotherapy plans to minimize the normal tissue damage while persevering sufficient tumor control. As a result, treatment planning has become more labor intensive, requiring hours or even days of planner effort to optimize an individual patient case in a trial-and-error fashion. More recently, artificial intelligence has been utilized to automate and improve various aspects of medical science. For radiotherapy treatment planning, many algorithms have been developed to better support planners. These algorithms focus on automating the planning process and/or optimizing dosimetric trade-offs, and they have already made great impact on improving treatment planning efficiency and plan quality consistency. In this review, the smart planning tools in current clinical use are summarized in 3 main categories: automated rule implementation and reasoning, modeling of prior knowledge in clinical practice, and multicriteria optimization. Novel artificial intelligence-based treatment planning applications, such as deep learning-based algorithms and emerging research directions, are also reviewed. Finally, the challenges of artificial intelligence-based treatment planning are discussed for future works.

Incorporating Case-Based Reasoning for Radiation Therapy Knowledge Modeling: A Pelvic Case Study

Knowledge models in radiotherapy capture the relation between patient anatomy and dosimetry to provide treatment planning guidance. When treatment schemes evolve, existing models struggle to predict accurately. We propose a case-based reasoning framework designed to handle novel anatomies that are of same type but vary beyond original training samples. A total of 105 pelvic intensity-modulated radiotherapy cases were analyzed. Eighty cases were prostate cases while the other 25 were prostate-plus-lymph-node cases. We simulated 4 scenarios: Scarce scenario, Semiscarce scenario, Semiample scenario, and Ample scenario. For the Scarce scenario, a multiple stepwise regression model was trained using 85 cases (80 prostate, 5 prostate-plus-lymph-node). The proposed workflow started with evaluating the feature novelty of new cases against 5 training prostate-plus-lymph-node cases using leverage statistic. The case database was composed of a 5-case dose atlas. Case-based dose prediction was compared against the regression model prediction using sum of squared residual. Mean sum of squared residual of case-based and regression predictions for the bladder of 13 identified outliers were 0.174 ± 0.166 and 0.459 ± 0.508, respectively (P = .0326). For the rectum, the respective mean sum of squared residuals were 0.103 ± 0.120 and 0.150 ± 0.171 for case-based and regression prediction (P = .1972). By retaining novel cases, under the Ample scenario, significant statistical improvement was observed over the Scarce scenario (P = .0398) for the bladder model. We expect that the incorporation of case-based reasoning that judiciously applies appropriate predictive models could improve overall prediction accuracy and robustness in clinical practice.

Goal-Driven Beam Setting Optimization for Whole-Breast Radiation Therapy

Purpose:

To develop an automated optimization program to generate optimal beam settings for whole-breast radiation therapy driven by clinically oriented goals.

Materials and Methods:

Forty patients were retrospectively included in this study. Each patient’s planning images, contoured structures of planning target volumes, organs-at-risk, and breast wires were used to optimize for patient-specific–beam settings. Two beam geometries were available tangential beams only and tangential plus supraclavicular beams. Beam parameters included isocenter position, gantry, collimator, couch angles, and multileaf collimator shape. A geometry-based goal function was defined to determine such beam parameters to minimize out-of-field target volume and in-field ipsilateral lung volume. For each geometry, the weighting in the goal function was trained with 10 plans and tested on 10 additional plans. For each query patient, the optimal beam setting was searched for different gantry-isocenter pairs. Optimal fluence maps were generated by an in-house automatic fluence optimization program for target coverage and homogeneous dose distribution, and dose calculation was performed in Eclipse. Automatically generated plans were compared with manually generated plans for target coverage and lung and heart sparing.

Results:

The program successfully produced a set of beam parameters for every patient. Beam optimization time ranged from 10 to 120 s. The automatic plans had overall comparable plan quality to manually generated plans. For all testing cases, the mean target V_95% was 91.0% for the automatic plans and 88.5% for manually generated plans. The mean ipsilateral lung V_20Gy was lower for the automatic plans (15.2% vs 17.9%). The heart mean dose, maximum dose of the body, and conformity index were all comparable.

Conclusion:

We developed an automated goal-driven beam setting optimization program for whole-breast radiation therapy. It provides clinically relevant solutions based on previous clinical practice as well as patient specific anatomy on a substantially faster time frame.