EP-1628: Single-click automatic radiotherapy treatment planning for breast, prostate and vertebrae

Automated Hypofractionated IMRT treatment planning for early-stage breast Cancer

Background

Hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation is a standard adjuvant therapy for early-stage breast cancer. This study evaluates the plan quality and efficacy of an in-house-developed automated radiotherapy treatment planning algorithm for hypofractionated whole-breast radiotherapy.

Methods

A cohort of 99 node-negative left-sided breast cancer patients completed hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation with six-field IMRT for 42.56 Gy in 16 daily fractions from year 2016 to 2018 at a tertiary center were re-planned with an in-house-developed algorithm. The automated plan-generating C#-based program is developed in a Varian ESAPI research mode. The dose-volume histogram (DVH) and other dosimetric parameters of the automated and manual plans were directly compared.

Results

The average time for generating an autoplan was 5 to 6 min, while the manual planning time ranged from 1 to 1.5 h. There was only a small difference in both the gantry angles and the collimator angles between the autoplans and the manual plans (ranging from 2.2 to 5.3 degrees). Autoplans and manual plans performed similarly well in hotspot volume and PTV coverage, with the autoplans performing slightly better in the ipsilateral-lung-sparing dose parameters but were inferior in contralateral-breast-sparing. The autoplan dosimetric quality did not vary with different breast sizes, but for manual plans, there was worse ipsilateral-lung-sparing (V_4Gy) in larger or medium-sized breasts than in smaller breasts. Autoplans were generally superior than manual plans in CI (1.24 ± 0.06 vs. 1.30 ± 0.09, p < 0.01) and MU (1010 ± 46 vs. 1205 ± 187, p < 0.01).

Conclusions

Our study presents a well-designed standardized fully automated planning algorithm for optimized whole-breast radiotherapy treatment plan generation. A large cohort of 99 patients were re-planned and retrospectively analyzed. The automated plans demonstrated similar or even better dosimetric quality and efficacy in comparison with the manual plans. Our result suggested that the autoplanning algorithm has great clinical applicability potential.

Geometrical and dosimetric evaluation of breast target volume auto-contouring

Background and purpose

Automatic delineations are often used as a starting point in the radiotherapy contouring workflow, after which they are manually reviewed and adapted. The purpose of this work was to quantify the geometric differences between automatic and manually edited breast clinical target volume (CTV) contours and evaluate the dosimetric impact of such differences.

Materials and methods

Eighty-seven automatically generated and manually edited contours of the left breast were retrieved from our clinical database. The automatic contours were obtained with a commercial auto-segmentation toolbox. The geometrical comparison was performed both locally and globally using the Dice score and the 95% Hausdorff distance (HD). Two treatment plans were generated for each patient and the obtained dosimetric differences were quantified using dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters in the lungs, heart and planning target volume (PTV). An inter-observer variability study with four observers was performed on a subset of ten patients.

Results

A median Dice score of 0.95 and a median 95% HD of 9.7 mm were obtained. Larger breasts were consistently under-contoured. Cranial under-contouring resulted in more than 5% relative decrease in PTV coverage in 15% of the patients while lateroposterior over-contouring increased the lung V_20Gy by a maximum of 2%. The inter-observer variability of the PTV coverage was smaller than the difference between PTV coverage achieved by the automatic and the consensus contours.

Conclusions

Cranial under-contouring resulted in under-treatment, while lateroposterior over-contouring resulted in an increased lung dosage that is clinically irrelevant, showing the need to consider dose distributions to assess the clinical impact of local geometrical differences.