RapidPlan knowledge based planning: iterative learning process and model ability to steer planning strategies

On the necessity of specialized knowledge-based models for SBRT prostate treatments plans

PURPOSE

Test whether a well-grounded KBP model trained on moderately hypo-fractionated prostate treatments can be used to satisfactorily drive the optimization of SBRT prostate treatments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A KBP model (SBRT-model) was developed, trained and validated using the first forty-seven clinically treated VMAT SBRT prostate plans (42.7 Gy/7fx or 36.25 Gy/5fx). The performance and robustness of this model were compared against a high-quality KBP-model (ST-model) that was already clinically adopted for hypo-fractionated (70 Gy/28fx and 60 Gy/20fx) prostate treatments. The two models were compared in terms of their predictions robustness, and the quality of their outcomes were evaluated against a set of reference clinical SBRT plans. Plan quality was assessed using DVH metrics, blinded clinical ranking, and a dedicated Plan Quality Metric algorithm.

RESULTS

The plan libraries of the two models were found to share a high degree of anatomical similarity. The overall quality (APQM%) of the plans obtained both with the ST- and SBRT-models was compatible with that of the original clinical plans, namely (93.7 ± 4.1)% and (91.6 ± 3.9)% vs (92.8.9 ± 3.6)%. Plans obtained with the ST-model showed significantly higher target coverage (PTV V95%): (97.9 ± 0.8)% vs (97.1 ± 0.9)% (p < 0.05). Conversely, plans optimized following the SBRT-model showed a small but not-clinically relevant increase in OAR sparing. ST-model generally provided more reliable predictions than SBRT-model. Two radiation oncologists judged as equivalent the plans based on the KBP prediction, which was also judged better that reference clinical plans.

CONCLUSION

A KBP model trained on moderately fractionated prostate treatment plans provided optimal SBRT prostate plans, with similar or larger plan quality than an embryonic SBRT-model based on a limited number of cases.

Dosimetry and efficiency comparison of knowledge-based and manual planning using volumetric modulated arc therapy for craniospinal irradiation

BACKGROUND

Craniospinal irradiation (CSI) poses a challenge to treatment planning due to the large target, field junction, and multiple organs at risk (OARs) involved. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of knowledge-based planning (KBP) in CSI by comparing original manual plans (MP), KBP RapidPlan initial plans (RPI), and KBP RapidPlan final plans (RPF), which received further re-optimization to meet the dose constraints.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Dose distributions in the target were evaluated in terms of coverage, mean dose, conformity index (CI), and homogeneity index (HI). The dosimetric results of OARs, planning time, and monitor unit (MU) were evaluated.

RESULTS

All MP and RPF plans met the plan goals, and 89.36% of RPI plans met the plan goals. The Wilcoxon tests showed comparable target coverage, CI, and HI for the MP and RPF groups; however, worst plan quality was demonstrated in the RPI plans than in MP and RPF. For the OARs, RPF and RPI groups had better dosimetric results than the MP group (P < 0.05 for optic nerves, eyes, parotid glands, and heart). The planning time was significantly reduced by the KBP from an average of 677.80 min in MP to 227.66 min (P < 0.05) and 307.76 min (P < 0.05) in RPI, and RPF, respectively. MU was not significantly different between these three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The KBP can significantly reduce planning time in CSI. Manual re-optimization after the initial KBP is recommended to enhance the plan quality.

Beam-wise dose composition learning for head and neck cancer dose prediction in radiotherapy

Automatic and accurate dose distribution prediction plays an important role in radiotherapy plan. Although previous methods can provide promising performance, most methods did not consider beam-shaped radiation of treatment delivery in clinical practice. This leads to inaccurate prediction, especially on beam paths. To solve this problem, we propose a beam-wise dose composition learning (BDCL) method for dose prediction in the context of head and neck (H&N) radiotherapy plan. Specifically, a global dose network is first utilized to predict coarse dose values in the whole-image space. Then, we propose to generate individual beam masks to decompose the coarse dose distribution into multiple field doses, called beam voters, which are further refined by a subsequent beam dose network and reassembled to form the final dose distribution. In particular, we design an overlap consistency module to keep the similarity of high-level features in overlapping regions between different beam voters. To make the predicted dose distribution more consistent with the real radiotherapy plan, we also propose a dose-volume histogram (DVH) calibration process to facilitate feature learning in some clinically concerned regions. We further apply an edge enhancement procedure to enhance the learning of the extracted feature from the dose falloff regions. Experimental results on a public H&N cancer dataset from the AAPM OpenKBP challenge show that our method achieves superior performance over other state-of-the-art approaches by significant margins. Source code is released at https://github.com/TL9792/BDCLDosePrediction.

The NCS code of practice for the quality assurance of treatment planning systems (NCS-35)

A subcommittee of the Netherlands Commission on Radiation Dosimetry (NCS) was initiated in 2018 with the task to update and extend a previous publication (NCS-15) on the quality assurance of treatment planning systems (TPS) (Bruinviset al2005). The field of treatment planning has changed considerably since 2005. Whereas the focus of the previous report was more on the technical aspects of the TPS, the scope of this report is broader with a focus on a department wide implementation of the TPS. New sections about education, automated planning, information technology (IT) and updates are therefore added. Although the scope is photon therapy, large parts of this report will also apply to all other treatment modalities. This paper is a condensed version of these guidelines; the full version of the report in English is freely available from the NCS website (http://radiationdosimetry.org/ncs/publications). The paper starts with the scope of this report in relation to earlier reports on this subject. Next, general aspects of the commissioning process are addressed, like e.g. project management, education, and safety. It then focusses more on technical aspects such as beam commissioning and patient modeling, dose representation, dose calculation and (automated) plan optimisation. The final chapters deal with IT-related subjects and scripting, and the process of updating or upgrading the TPS.

Clinical implementation of deep learning-based automated left breast simultaneous integrated boost radiotherapy treatment planning

Background and purpose

Automation in radiotherapy treatment planning aims to improve both the quality and the efficiency of the process. The aim of this study was to report on a clinical implementation of a Deep Learning (DL) auto-planning model for left-sided breast cancer.

Materials and methods

The DL model was developed for left-sided breast simultaneous integrated boost treatments under deep-inspiration breath-hold. Eighty manual dose distributions were revised and used for training. Ten patients were used for model validation. The model was then used to design 17 clinical auto-plans. Manual and auto-plans were scored on a list of clinical goals for both targets and organs-at-risk (OARs). For validation, predicted and mimicked dose (PD and MD, respectively) percent error (PE) was calculated with respect to manual dose. Clinical and validation cohorts were compared in terms of MD only.

Results

Median values of both PD and MD validation plans fulfilled the evaluation criteria. PE was < 1% for targets for both PD and MD. PD was well aligned to manual dose while MD left lung mean dose was significantly less (median:5.1 Gy vs 6.1 Gy). The left-anterior-descending artery maximum dose was found out of requirements (median values:+5.9 Gy and + 2.9 Gy, for PD and MD respectively) in three validation cases, while it was reduced for clinical cases (median:-1.9 Gy). No other clinically significant differences were observed between clinical and validation cohorts.

Conclusion

Small OAR differences observed during the model validation were not found clinically relevant. The clinical implementation outcomes confirmed the robustness of the model.

Improving knowledge-based treatment planning for lung cancer radiotherapy with automatic multi-criteria optimized training plans

BACKGROUND

Knowledge-based planning (KBP) is a method for automated radiotherapy treatment planning where appropriate optimization objectives for new patients are predicted based on a library of training plans. KBP can save time and improve organ at-risk sparing and inter-patient consistency compared to manual planning, but its performance depends on the quality of the training plans. We used another system for automated planning, which generates multi-criteria optimized (MCO) plans based on a wish list, to create training plans for the KBP model, to allow seamless integration of knowledge from a new system into clinical routine. Model performance was compared for KBP models trained with manually created and automatic MCO treatment plans.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two RapidPlan models with the same 30 locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients included were created, one containing manually created clinical plans (RP_CLIN) and one containing fully automatic multi-criteria optimized plans (RP_MCO). For 15 validation patients, model performance was compared in terms of dose-volume parameters and normal tissue complication probabilities, and an oncologist performed a blind comparison of the clinical (CLIN), RP_CLIN, and RP_MCO plans.

RESULTS

The heart and esophagus doses were lower for RP_MCO compared to RP_CLIN, resulting in an average reduction in the risk of 2-year mortality by 0.9 percentage points and the risk of acute esophageal toxicity by 1.6 percentage points with RP_MCO. The oncologist preferred the RP_MCO plan for 8 patients and the CLIN plan for 7 patients, while the RP_CLIN plan was not preferred for any patients.

CONCLUSION

RP_MCO improved OAR sparing compared to RP_CLIN and was selected for implementation in the clinic. Training a KBP model with clinical plans may lead to suboptimal output plans, and making an extra effort to optimize the library plans in the KBP model creation phase can improve the plan quality for many future patients.

Online adaptive planning methods for intensity-modulated radiotherapy

Online adaptive radiation therapy aims at adapting a patient's treatment plan to their current anatomy to account for inter-fraction variations before daily treatment delivery. As this process needs to be accomplished while the patient is immobilized on the treatment couch, it requires time-efficient adaptive planning methods to generate a quality daily treatment plan rapidly. The conventional planning methods do not meet the time requirement of online adaptive radiation therapy because they often involve excessive human intervention, significantly prolonging the planning phase. This article reviews the planning strategies employed by current commercial online adaptive radiation therapy systems, research on online adaptive planning, and artificial intelligence's potential application to online adaptive planning.

Can knowledge based treatment planning of VMAT for post-mastectomy locoregional radiotherapy involving internal mammary chain and supraclavicular fossa improve performance efficiency?

Introduction

To validate and evaluate the performance of knowledge-based treatment planning for Volumetric Modulated Arc Radiotherapy for post-mastectomy loco-regional radiotherapy.

Material and methods

Two knowledge-based planning (KBP) models for different dose prescriptions were built using the Eclipse RapidPlanTM v 16.1 (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, USA) utilising the plans of previously treated patients with left-sided breast cancer who had undergone irradiation of the left chest wall, internal mammary nodal (IMN) region and supra-clavicular fossa (SCF). Plans of 60 and 73 patients were used to generate the KBP models for the prescriptions of 40 Gy in 15 fractions and 26 Gy in 5 fractions, respectively. A blinded review of all the clinical plans (CLI) and KBPs was done by two experienced radiation oncology consultants. Statistical analysis of the two groups was also done using the standard two-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test, and p&lt;0.05 was considered significant.

Results

A total of 20 metrics were compared. The KBPs were found to be either better (6/20) or comparable (10/20) to the CLIs for both the regimens. Dose to heart, contralateral breast,contralateral lung were either better or comparable in the KBP plans except of ipsilateral lung. Mean dose (Gy) for the ipsilateral lung are significantly (p˂0.001) higher in KBP though the values were acceptable clinically. Plans were of similar quality as per the result of the blinded review which was conducted by slice-by-slice evaluation of dose distribution for target coverage, overdose volume and dose to the OARs. However, it was also observed that treatment times in terms of monitoring units (MUs) and complexity indices are more in CLIs as compared with KBPs (p&lt;0.001).

Discussion

KBP models for left-sided post-mastectomy loco-regional radiotherapy were developed and validated for clinical use. These models improved the efficiency of treatment delivery as well as work flow for VMAT planning involving both moderately hypo fractionated and ultra-hypo fractionated radiotherapy regimens.

Implementation, Dosimetric Assessment, and Treatment Validation of Knowledge-Based Planning (KBP) Models in VMAT Head and Neck Radiation Oncology

The aim of this study was to evaluate knowledge-based treatment planning (KBP) models in terms of their dosimetry and deliverability and to investigate their clinical benefits. Three H&N KBP models were built utilizing RapidPlan™, based on the dose prescription, which is given according to the planning target volume (PTV). The training set for each model consisted of 43 clinically acceptable volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans. Model quality was assessed and compared to the delivered treatment plans using the homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), structure dose difference (PTV, organ at risk—OAR), monitor units, MU factor, and complexity index. Model deliverability was assessed through a patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) gamma index-based analysis. The dosimetric assessment showed better OAR sparing for the RapidPlan™ plans and for the low- and high-risk PTV, and the HI, and CI were comparable between the clinical and RapidPlan™ plans, while for the intermediate-risk PTV, CI was better for clinical plans. The 2D gamma passing rates for RapidPlan™ plans were similar or better than the clinical ones using the 3%/3 mm gamma-index criterion. Monitor units, the MU factors, and complexity indices were found to be comparable between RapidPlan™ and the clinical plans. Knowledge-based treatment plans can be safely adapted into clinical routines, providing improved plan quality in a time efficient way while minimizing user variability.

Updating a clinical Knowledge-Based Planning prediction model for prostate radiotherapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Clinical knowledge-based planning (KBP) models dedicated to prostate radiotherapy treatment may require periodical updates to remain relevant and to adapt to possible changes in the clinic. This study proposes a paired comparison of two different update approaches through a longitudinal analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A clinically validated KBP model for moderately hypofractionated prostate therapy was periodically updated using two approaches: one was targeted at achieving the biggest library size (M_t), while the other one at achieving the highest mean sample quality (R_t). Four subsequent updates were accomplished. The goodness, robustness and quality of the outcomes were measured and compared to those of the common ancestor. Plan quality was assessed through the Plan Quality Metric (PQM) and plan complexity was monitored.

RESULTS

Both update procedures allowed for an increase in the OARs sparing between +3.9 % and +19.2 % compared to plans generated by a human planner. Target coverage and homogeneity slightly reduced [-0.2 %;-14.7 %] while plan complexity showed only minor changes. Increasing the sample size resulted in more reliable predictions and improved goodness-of-fit, while increasing the mean sample quality improved the outcomes but slightly reduced the models reliability.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeated updates of clinical KBP models can enhance their robustness, reliability and the overall quality of automatically generated plans. The periodical expansion of the model sample accompanied by the removal of the unacceptable low quality plans should maximize the benefits of the updates while limiting the associated workload.

Machine learning-based automated planning for hippocampal avoidance prophylactic cranial irradiation

PURPOSE

Design and evaluate a knowledge-based model using commercially available artificial intelligence tools for automated treatment planning to efficiently generate clinically acceptable hippocampal avoidance prophylactic cranial irradiation (HA-PCI) plans in patients with small-cell lung cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from 44 patients with different grades of head flexion (range 45°) were used as the training datasets. A Rapid Plan knowledge-based planning (KB) routine was applied for a prescription of 25 Gy in 10 fractions using two volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) arcs. The 9 plans used to validate the initial model were added to generate a second version of the RP model (Hippo-MARv2). Automated plans (AP) were compared with manual plans (MP) according to the dose-volume objectives of the PREMER trial. Optimization time and model quality were assessed using 10 patients who were not included in the first 44 datasets.

RESULTS

A 55% reduction in average optimization time was observed for AP compared to MP. (15 vs 33 min; p = 0.001).Statistically significant differences in favor of AP were found for D98% (22.6 vs 20.9 Gy), Homogeneity Index (17.6 vs 23.0) and Hippocampus D mean (11.0 vs 11.7 Gy). The AP met the proposed objectives without significant deviations, while in the case of the MP, significant deviations from the proposed target values were found in 2 cases.

CONCLUSION

The KB model allows automated planning for HA-PCI. Automation of radiotherapy planning improves efficiency, safety, and quality and could facilitate access to new techniques.

Can the use of knowledge-based planning systems improve stereotactic radiotherapy planning? A systematic review

Introduction:

This study aimed to systematically review the literature to synthesise and summarise whether using knowledge-based planning (KBP) can improve the planning of stereotactic radiotherapy treatments.

Methods:

A systematic literature search was carried out using Medline, Scopus and Cochrane databases to evaluate the use of KBP planning in stereotactic radiotherapy. Three hundred twenty-five potential studies were identified and screened to find 25 relevant studies.

Results:

Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Where a commercial KBP was used, 72.7% of studies reported a quality improvement, and 45.5% reported a reduction in planning time. There is evidence that when used as a quality control tool, KBP can highlight stereotactic plans that need revision. In studies that use KBP as the starting point for radiotherapy planning optimisation, the radiotherapy plans generated are typically equal to or superior to those planned manually.

Conclusions:

There is evidence that KBP has the potential to improve the quality and speed of stereotactic radiotherapy planning. Further research is required to accurately quantify such systems’ quality improvements and time savings. Notably, there has been little research into their use for prostate, spinal or liver stereotactic radiotherapy, and research in these areas would be desirable. It is recommended that future studies use the ICRU 91 level 2 reporting format and that blinded physician review could add a qualitative assessment of KBP system performance.

Enhanced cardiac substructure sparing through knowledge-based treatment planning for non-small cell lung cancer radiotherapy

Radiotherapy (RT) doses to cardiac substructures from the definitive treatment of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) have been linked to post-RT cardiac toxicities. With modern treatment delivery techniques, it is possible to focus radiation doses to the planning target volume while reducing cardiac substructure doses. However, it is often challenging to design such treatment plans due to complex tradeoffs involving numerous cardiac substructures. Here, we built a cardiac-substructure-based knowledge-based planning (CS-KBP) model and retrospectively evaluated its performance against a cardiac-based KBP (C-KBP) model and manually optimized patient treatment plans. CS-KBP/C-KBP models were built with 27 previously-treated plans that preferentially spare the heart. While the C-KBP training plans were created with whole heart structures, the CS-KBP model training plans each have 15 cardiac substructures (coronary arteries, valves, great vessels, and chambers of the heart). CS-KBP training plans reflect cardiac-substructure sparing preferences. We evaluated both models on 28 additional patients. Three sets of treatment plans were compared: (1) manually optimized, (2) C-KBP model-generated, and (3) CS-KBP model-generated. Plans were normalized to receive the prescribed dose to at least 95% of the PTV. A two-tailed paired-sample t-test was performed for clinically relevant dose-volume metrics to evaluate the performance of the CS-KBP model against the C-KBP model and clinical plans, respectively. Overall results show significantly improved cardiac substructure sparing by CS-KBP in comparison to C-KBP and the clinical plans. For instance, the average left anterior descending artery volume receiving 15 Gy (V15 Gy) was significantly lower (p &lt; 0.01) for CS-KBP (0.69 ± 1.57 cc) compared to the clinical plans (1.23 ± 1.76 cc) and C-KBP plans (1.05 ± 1.68 cc). In conclusion, the CS-KBP model significantly improved cardiac-substructure sparing without exceeding the tolerances of other OARs or compromising PTV coverage.

Knowledge-based planning using both the predicted DVH of organ-at risk and planning target volume

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of a knowledge-based planning (KBP) method in nasopharyngeal cancer radiotherapy using the predicted dose-volume histogram (DVH) of organ-at risk (OAR) and planning target volume (PTV).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 85 patients previously treated for nasopharyngeal cancer using 9-field 6-MV intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) were identified for training and 30 similar patients were identified for testing. The dosimetric deposition information, individual dose-volume histograms (IDVHs) induced by a series of fields with uniform-intensity irradiation, was used to predict both OAR and PTV DVH. Two KBP methods (KBP_OAR and KBP_OAR+PTV) were established for plan generation based on the DVH prediction. The KBP_OAR method utilized the dose constraints based on the predicted OAR DVH and the PTV dose constraints obtained according to the planning experience, while the KBP_OAR+PTV method applied the dose constraints based on the predicted OAR and PTV DVH. For the plan evaluation, the PTV dose coverage was used D₉₈ and D₂, and the maximum dose, mean dose or dose-volume parameters were used for the OARs. Statistical differences of the two KBP methods were tested with the Wilcoxon signed rank test.

RESULTS

For patients with T3 tumors, there was no significant difference between the KBP_OAR and KBP_OAR+PTV methods in dosimetric results at most OARs and PTVs. Both KBP methods achieved a similar number of plans meeting the dose requirements. For patients with T4 tumors, KBP_OAR+PTV reduced the maximum dose by more than 1 Gy in the body, spinal cord, optic nerve, eye and temporal lobes and reduced the V₅₀ value by more than 3.9% in the larynx and tongue without reducing the PTV dose compared with KBP_OAR. The KBP_OAR+PTV method increased the plans by more than 14.2% in meeting the maximum dose requirements at the body, optic nerve, mandible and eye and increased the plans by more than 21.4% in meeting the V₅₀ of the larynx and V₅₀ of the tongue when compared with the KBP_OAR method.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with T3 tumors, no significant difference was found between the KBP_OAR and KBP_OAR+PTV methods in dosimetric results at most OARs and PTVs. For patients with T4 tumors, the KBP_OAR+PTV method performs better than the KBP_OAR method in improving the quality of the plans. Compared with the KBP_OAR method, dose sparing of some OARs was achieved without reducing PTV dose coverage and helped to increase the number of plans meeting the dose requirements when the KBP_OAR+PTV method was utilized.

RapidPlan models for prostate radiotherapy treatment planning with 10-MV photon beams

Introduction:

The RapidPlan is a radiotherapy planning tool that uses a dataset of approved plans to predict the dose distribution and automatically generates the dose–volume constraints for optimisation of the new plan. This study compares three strategies of model building for the treatment of prostate cancer with the 10-MV photon beam.

Methods:

Three models for prostate treatment were compared: Model 6X, Model10X and Model6Xrefined. Model6X is already used in our department and was trained on treatment plans based on the 6-MV photon beam. Model10X was trained on treatment plans based on the 10-MV photon beam and manually optimised by an experienced medical physicist. Finally, Model6Xrefined was trained on plans automatically created by the Model6X, but using the 10-MV photon beam. The three models were used to generate 25 new plans with the 10-MV photon beam.

Results:

Model10X generated plans with 2 Gy lower mean dose to bladder-PTV and rectum-PTV volumes and 8% lower V15Gy at bladder and rectum volumes, although the number of monitor units increased by 170 on average.

Conclusions:

The model trained on manually optimised plans generated plans with higher normal tissue sparing. However, model building is a time-consuming process, so a cost–benefit balance should be performed.

Development and Clinical Implementation of an Automated Virtual Integrative Planner for Radiation Therapy of Head and Neck Cancer

Purpose

Head and neck (HN) radiation (RT) treatment planning is complex and resource intensive. Deviations and inconsistent plan quality significantly affect clinical outcomes. We sought to develop a novel automated virtual integrative (AVI) knowledge-based planning application to reduce planning time, increase consistency, and improve baseline quality.

Methods and Materials

An in-house write-enabled script was developed from a library of 668 previously treated HN RT plans. Prospective hazard analysis was performed, and mitigation strategies were implemented before clinical release. The AVI-planner software was retrospectively validated in a cohort of 52 recent HN cases. A physician panel evaluated planning limitations during initial deployment, and feedback was enacted via software refinements. A final second set of plans was generated and evaluated. Kolmogorov-Smirnov test in addition to generalized evaluation metric and weighted experience score were used to compare normal tissue sparing between final AVI planner versus respective clinically treated and historically accepted plans. A t test was used to compare the interactive time, complexity, and monitor units for AVI planner versus manual optimization.

Results

Initially, 86% of plans were acceptable to treat, with 10% minor and 4% major revisions or rejection recommended. Variability was noted in plan quality among HN subsites, with high initial quality for oropharynx and oral cavity plans. Plans needing revisions were comprised of sinonasal, nasopharynx, P-16 negative squamous cell carcinoma unknown primary, or cutaneous primary sites. Normal tissue sparing varied within subsites, but AVI planner significantly lowered mean larynx dose (median, 18.5 vs 19.7 Gy; P < .01) compared with clinical plans. AVI planner significantly reduced interactive optimization time (mean, 2 vs 85 minutes; P < .01).

Conclusions

AVI planner reliably generated clinically acceptable RT plans for oral cavity, salivary, oropharynx, larynx, and hypopharynx cancers. Physician-driven iterative learning processes resulted in favorable evolution in HN RT plan quality with significant time savings and improved consistency using AVI planner.

A practical method to improve the performance of knowledge-based VMAT planning for endometrial and cervical cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of this work was to demonstrate a practical and effective method to improve the performance of RapidPlan (RP) model.

METHODS

203 consecutive clinical VMAT plans (P₀) for cervical and endometrial cancer were used to train an RP model (M₀). The plans were then reoptimized by M₀ to generate 203 new plans (P₁). Compared with P₀, 150 plans with a lower mean dose (MD) of bladder, rectum and PBM were selected from P₁ to configure a new RP model (M₁). A final RP model (M₂) was trained using plans in M₁ and the remaining 53 plans from P₁ (excluding OARs with worse MD) and the corresponding plans from P₀ (only including OARs with better MD). The models were validated on the mentioned 53 plans (closed-loop set) and 46 patient cohorts outside the training library (open-loop set). p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

For closed-loop validation, the difference of D_2%, D_98% and CI_95% between groups was of no statistical significance, the homogeneity index (HI) was lower in the groups of RP models (p < 0.05). The MD of all OARs decreased monotonically in the sequence of the clinical group, group M₀, M₁ and M₂, except the MD of bowel in M₁ and MD of LFH in M₂. Similarly, for open-loop validation, there was no significant difference in D_2%, D_98% and HI between groups, but CI_95% was larger in the clinical group (p < 0.05). The MD of all OARs decreased monotonically in the sequence of the clinical group, group M₀, M₁ and M₂, with the exception of bowel in M₁.

CONCLUSION

The practical method of incorporating plan data of better-sparing OARs from both the clinical VMAT plans and the re-optimized plans could further improve the performance of the RP model.

Probabilistic Pareto plan generation for semiautomated multicriteria radiation therapy treatment planning

Objective.We propose a semiautomatic pipeline for radiation therapy treatment planning, combining ideas from machine learning-automated planning and multicriteria optimization (MCO).Approach.Using knowledge extracted from historically delivered plans, prediction models for spatial dose and dose statistics are trained and furthermore systematically modified to simulate changes in tradeoff priorities, creating a set of differently biased predictions. Based on the predictions, an MCO problem is subsequently constructed using previously developed dose mimicking functions, designed in such a way that its Pareto surface spans the range of clinically acceptable yet realistically achievable plans as exactly as possible. The result is an algorithm outputting a set of Pareto optimal plans, either fluence-based or machine parameter-based, which the user can navigate between in real time to make adjustments before a final deliverable plan is created.Main results.Numerical experiments performed on a dataset of prostate cancer patients show that one may often navigate to a better plan than one produced by a single-plan-output algorithm.Significance.We demonstrate the potential of merging MCO and a data-driven workflow to automate labor-intensive parts of the treatment planning process while maintaining a certain extent of manual control for the user.

Artificial Intelligence in Radiation Therapy

Artificial intelligence (AI) has great potential to transform the clinical workflow of radiotherapy. Since the introduction of deep neural networks, many AI-based methods have been proposed to address challenges in different aspects of radiotherapy. Commercial vendors have started to release AI-based tools that can be readily integrated to the established clinical workflow. To show the recent progress in AI-aided radiotherapy, we have reviewed AI-based studies in five major aspects of radiotherapy including image reconstruction, image registration, image segmentation, image synthesis, and automatic treatment planning. In each section, we summarized and categorized the recently published methods, followed by a discussion of the challenges, concerns, and future development. Given the rapid development of AI-aided radiotherapy, the efficiency and effectiveness of radiotherapy in the future could be substantially improved through intelligent automation of various aspects of radiotherapy.

Enhancing Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients with iCE, a Novel System for Automated Multi-Criterial Treatment Planning Including Beam Angle Optimization

In this study, the novel iCE radiotherapy treatment planning system (TPS) for automated multi-criterial planning with integrated beam angle optimization (BAO) was developed, and applied to optimize organ at risk (OAR) sparing and systematically investigate the impact of beam angles on radiotherapy dose in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC). iCE consists of an in-house, sophisticated multi-criterial optimizer with integrated BAO, coupled to a broadly used commercial TPS. The in-house optimizer performs fluence map optimization to automatically generate an intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plan with optimal beam angles for each patient. The obtained angles and dose-volume histograms are then used to automatically generate the final deliverable plan with the commercial TPS. For the majority of 26 LA-NSCLC patients, iCE achieved improved heart and esophagus sparing compared to the manually created clinical plans, with significant reductions in the median heart D_mean (8.1 vs. 9.0 Gy, p = 0.02) and esophagus D_mean (18.5 vs. 20.3 Gy, p = 0.02), and reductions of up to 6.7 Gy and 5.8 Gy for individual patients. iCE was superior to automated planning using manually selected beam angles. Differences in the OAR doses of iCE plans with 6 beams compared to 4 and 8 beams were statistically significant overall, but highly patient-specific. In conclusion, automated planning with integrated BAO can further enhance and individualize radiotherapy for LA-NSCLC.

Machine learning for dose-volume histogram based clinical decision-making support system in radiation therapy plans for brain tumors

•

Extraction, analysis, and interpretation of historical treatment planning data is valuable but very time-consuming.

•

Proposed machine learning model classifies radiotherapy plans based on their treatment planning objectives and trade-offs.

•

Application of double nested cross-validation enabled to build a robust model that achieved 94% accuracy on a testing data.

•

Model reasoning investigated with SHAP values showed consistency with clinical observations.

Purpose

To create and investigate a novel, clinical decision-support system using machine learning (ML).

Methods and Materials

The ML model was developed based on 79 radiotherapy plans of brain tumor patients that were prescribed a total dose of 60 Gy delivered with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Structures considered for analysis included planning target volume (PTV), brainstem, cochleae, and optic chiasm. The model aimed to classify the target variable that included class-0 corresponding to plans for which the PTV treatment planning objective was met and class-1 that was associated with plans for which the PTV objective was not met due to the priority trade-off to meet one or more organs-at-risk constraints. Several models were evaluated using double-nested cross-validation and an area-under-the-curve (AUC) metric, with the highest performing one selected for further investigation. The model predictions were explained with Shapely additive explanation (SHAP) interaction values.

Results

The highest-performing model was Logistic Regression achieving an accuracy of 93.8 ± 4.1% and AUC of 0.98 ± 0.02 on the testing data. The SHAP analysis indicated that the ΔD_99% metric for PTV had the greatest influence on the model predictions. The least important feature was ΔD_MAX for the left and right cochleae.

Conclusions

The trained model achieved satisfactory accuracy and can be used by medical physicists in a data-driven quality assurance program as well as by radiation oncologists to support their decision-making process in terms of treatment plan approval and potential plan modifications. Model explanation analysis showed that the model relies on clinically valid logic when making predictions.

Knowledge-Based Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Treatment Planning for Breast Cancer

Purpose:

To create and to validate knowledge-based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) models for breast cancer treatments without lymph node irradiation.

Materials and Methods:

One hundred VMAT-based breast plans (manual plans [MP]) were selected to create two knowledge-based VMAT models (breast left and breast right) using RapidPlan™. The plans were generated on Eclipse v15.5 (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) with 6 MV of a Novalis Tx equipped with a high-resolution multileaf collimator. The models were verified based on goodness-of-fit statistics using the coefficients of determination (R²) and Chi-square (χ²), and the goodness-of-estimation statistics through the mean square error (MSE). Geometrical and dosimetrical constraints were identified and removed from the RP models using statistical evaluation metrics and plots. For validation, 20 plans that integrate the models and 20 plans that do not were reoptimized with RP (closed and opened validation). Dosimetrical parameters of interest were used to compare MP versus RP plans for the Heart, Homolateral_Lung, Contralateral_Lung, and Contralateral_Breast. Optimization planning time and user independency were also analyzed.

Results:

The most unfavorable results of R² in both models for the organs at risk were as follows: for Contralateral_Lung 0.51 in RP right breast (RP_RB) and for Heart 0.60 in RP left breast (RP_LB). The most unfavorable results of χ² test were: for Contralateral_Breast 1.02 in RP_RB and for Heart 1.03 in RP_LB. These goodness-of-fit results show that no overfitting occurred in either of the models. There were no unfavorable results of mean square error (MSE, all < 0.05) in any of the two models. These goodness-of-estimation results show that the models have good estimation power. For closed validation, significant differences were found in RP_RB for Homolateral_Lung (all P ≤ 0.001), and in the RP_LB differences were found for the heart (all P ≤ 0.04) and for Homolateral_Lung (all P ≤ 0.022). For open validation, no statistically significant differences were obtained in either of the models. RP models had little impact on reducing optimization planning times for expert planners; nevertheless, the result showed a 30% reduction time for beginner planners. The use of RP models generates high-quality plans, without differences from the planner experience.

Conclusion:

Two RP models for breast cancer treatment using VMAT were successfully implemented. The use of RP models for breast cancer reduces the optimization planning time and improves the efficiency of the treatment planning process while ensuring high-quality plans.

Fully automated planning and delivery of hippocampal-sparing whole brain irradiation

The goal of this study is to fully automate the treatment planning and delivery process of hippocampal-sparing whole brain irradiation (HS-WBRT) by combining a RapidPlan (RP) knowledge-based planning model and HyperArc (HA) technology. Additionally, this study compares the dosimetric performance of RapidPlan-HyperArc (RP-HA) treatment plans with RP plans and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans. Ten patients previously treated with HS-WBRT using conventional VMAT were re-planned using RP-HA technique and RP model for HS-WBRT. Treatment plans were generated for 30Gy in 3Gy fractions using 6MV photon beam on a TrueBeam linear accelerator (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) equipped with high definition multileaf collimator (HDMLC). Target coverage, homogeneity index (HI), Paddick Conformity index (CI), dose to organs-at-risk (OARs) provided by the 3 planning modalities were compared, and a paired t-test was performed. Total number of monitor units (MU), effective planning time and beam-on-time time were reported and evaluated for each plan. RP-HA plans achieved on average a 4% increase in D_98% of PTV, a 26% improvement in HI, a 2.3% increase in CI, when compared to RP plans. Furthermore, RP-HA plans provided on average 11% decrease in D_100% of hippocampi when compared to VMAT plans. All RP-HA plans were generated in less than 30 minutes while RP plans took 40 minutes and VMAT plans required on average 9 hours to complete. Regarding beam-on-time time, it was estimated that RP-HA plans take on average 5 minutes to deliver while RP and VMAT plans require 6.5 and 10 minutes, respectively. RP-HA method provides fully automated planning and delivery for HS-WBRT. The auto-generated plans together with automated treatment delivery allow standardization of plan quality, increased efficiency and ultimately improved patient care.

Deep learning method for prediction of patient-specific dose distribution in breast cancer

Background

Patient-specific dose prediction improves the efficiency and quality of radiation treatment planning and reduces the time required to find the optimal plan. In this study, a patient-specific dose prediction model was developed for a left-sided breast clinical case using deep learning, and its performance was compared with that of conventional knowledge-based planning using RapidPlan™.

Methods

Patient-specific dose prediction was performed using a contour image of the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) with a U-net-based modified dose prediction neural network. A database of 50 volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for left-sided breast cancer patients was utilized to produce training and validation datasets. The dose prediction deep neural network (DpNet) feature weights of the previously learned convolution layers were applied to the test on a cohort of 10 test sets. With the same patient data set, dose prediction was performed for the 10 test sets after training in RapidPlan. The 3D dose distribution, absolute dose difference error, dose-volume histogram, 2D gamma index, and iso-dose dice similarity coefficient were used for quantitative evaluation of the dose prediction.

Results

The mean absolute error (MAE) and one standard deviation (SD) between the clinical and deep learning dose prediction models were 0.02 ± 0.04%, 0.01 ± 0.83%, 0.16 ± 0.82%, 0.52 ± 0.97, − 0.88 ± 1.83%, − 1.16 ± 2.58%, and − 0.97 ± 1.73% for D_95%, D_mean in the PTV, and the OARs of the body, left breast, heart, left lung, and right lung, respectively, and those measured between the clinical and RapidPlan dose prediction models were 0.02 ± 0.14%, 0.87 ± 0.63%, − 0.29 ± 0.98%, 1.30 ± 0.86%, − 0.32 ± 1.10%, 0.12 ± 2.13%, and − 1.74 ± 1.79, respectively.

Conclusions

In this study, a deep learning method for dose prediction was developed and was demonstrated to accurately predict patient-specific doses for left-sided breast cancer. Using the deep learning framework, the efficiency and accuracy of the dose prediction were compared to those of RapidPlan. The doses predicted by deep learning were superior to the results of the RapidPlan-generated VMAT plan.

Comprehensive nodal breast VMAT: solving the low-dose wash dilemma using an iterative knowledge-based radiotherapy planning solution

Introduction

Aimed to develop a simple and robust volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) solution for comprehensive lymph node (CLN) breast cancer without increase in low‐dose wash.

Methods

Forty CLN‐breast patient data sets were utilised to develop a knowledge‐based planning (KBP) VMAT model, which limits low‐dose wash using iterative learning and base‐tangential methods as benchmark. Another twenty data sets were employed to validate the model comparing KBP‐generated ipsilateral VMAT (ipsi‐VMAT) plans against the benchmarked hybrid (h)‐VMAT (departmental standard) and bowtie‐VMAT (published best practice) methods. Planning target volume (PTV), conformity/homogeneity index (CI/HI), organ‐at‐risk (OAR), remaining‐volume‐at‐risk (RVR) and blinded radiation oncologist (RO) plan preference were evaluated.

Results

Ipsi‐ and bowtie‐VMAT plans were dosimetrically equivalent, achieving greater nodal target coverage (P < 0.05) compared to h‐VMAT with minor reduction in breast coverage. CI was enhanced for a small reduction in breast HI with improved dose sparing to ipsilateral‐lung and humeral head (P < 0.05) at immaterial expense to spinal cord. Significantly, low‐dose wash to OARs and RVR were comparable between all plan types demonstrating a simple VMAT class solution robust to patient‐specific anatomic variation can be applied to CLN breast without need for complex beam modification (hybrid plans, avoidance sectors or other). This result was supported by blinded RO review.

Conclusions

A simple and robust ipsilateral VMAT class solution for CLN breast generated using iterative KBP modelling can achieve clinically acceptable target coverage and OAR sparing without unwanted increase in low‐dose wash associated with increased second malignancy risk.

An updating approach for knowledge-based planning models to improve plan quality and variability in volumetric-modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the dose-volume parameters and regression scatter plots of the iteratively improved RapidPlan (RP) models, specific knowledge-based planning (KBP) models, in volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for prostate cancer over three periods.

METHODS

A RP1 model was created from 47 clinical intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)/VMAT plans. A RP2 model was created to exceed dosimetric goals which set as the mean values +1SD of the dose-volume parameters of RP1 (50 consecutive new clinical VMAT plans). A RP3 model was created with more strict dose constraints for organs at risks (OARs) than RP1 and RP2 models (50 consecutive anew clinical VMAT plans). Each RP model was validated against 30 validation plans (RP1, RP2, and RP3) that were not used for model configuration, and the dose-volume parameters were compared. The Cook's distances of regression scatterplots of each model were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Significant differences (p < 0.05) between RP1 and RP2 were found in D_mean (101.5% vs. 101.9%), homogeneity index (3.90 vs. 4.44), 95% isodose conformity index (1.22 vs. 1.20) for the target, V_40Gy (47.3% vs. 45.7%), V_60Gy (27.9% vs. 27.1%), V_70Gy (16.4% vs. 15.2%), and V_78Gy (0.4% vs. 0.2%) for the rectal wall, and V_40Gy (43.8% vs. 41.8%) and V_70Gy (21.3% vs. 20.5%) for the bladder wall, whereas only V_70Gy (15.2% vs. 15.8%) of the rectal wall differed significantly between RP2 and RP3. The proportions of cases with a Cook's distance of <1.0 (RP1, RP2, and RP3 models) were 55%, 78%, and 84% for the rectal wall, and 77%, 68%, and 76% for the bladder wall, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The iteratively improved RP models, reflecting the clear dosimetric goals based on the RP feedback (dose-volume parameters) and more strict dose constraints for the OARs, generated superior dose-volume parameters and the regression scatterplots in the model converged. This approach could be used to standardize the inverse planning strategies.

Probabilistic feature extraction, dose statistic prediction and dose mimicking for automated radiation therapy treatment planning

PURPOSE

We propose a general framework for quantifying predictive uncertainties of dose-related quantities and leveraging this information in a dose mimicking problem in the context of automated radiation therapy treatment planning.

METHODS

A three-step pipeline, comprising feature extraction, dose statistic prediction and dose mimicking, is employed. In particular, the features are produced by a convolutional variational autoencoder and used as inputs in a previously developed nonparametric Bayesian statistical method, estimating the multivariate predictive distribution of a collection of predefined dose statistics. Specially developed objective functions are then used to construct a probabilistic dose mimicking problem based on the produced distributions, creating deliverable treatment plans.

RESULTS

The numerical experiments are performed using a dataset of 94 retrospective treatment plans of prostate cancer patients. We show that the features extracted by the variational autoencoder capture geometric information of substantial relevance to the dose statistic prediction problem and are related to dose statistics in a more regularized fashion than hand-crafted features. The estimated predictive distributions are reasonable and outperforms a non-input-dependent benchmark method, and the deliverable plans produced by the probabilistic dose mimicking agree better with their clinical counterparts than for a non-probabilistic formulation.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate that prediction of dose-related quantities may be extended to include uncertainty estimation and that such probabilistic information may be leveraged in a dose mimicking problem. The treatment plans produced by the proposed pipeline resemble their original counterparts well, illustrating the merits of a holistic approach to automated planning based on probabilistic modeling.

Use of knowledge based DVH predictions to enhance automated re-planning strategies in head and neck adaptive radiotherapy

This study aimed to investigate if a commercial, knowledge-based tool for radiotherapy planning could be used to estimate the amount of sparing in organs at risk (OARs) in the re-planning strategy for adaptive radiotherapy (ART). Eighty head and neck (HN) VMAT Pareto plans from our institute's database were used to train a knowledge-based planning (KBP) model. An evaluation set of another 20 HN patients was randomly selected. For each patient in the evaluation set, the planning computed tomography (CT) and 2 sets of on-board cone-beam CT, corresponding to the middle and second half of the radiotherapy treatment course, were extracted. The original plan was re-calculated on a daily deformed CT (delivered dose-volume histogram (DVH)) and compared with the KBP DVH predictions and with the final KBP DVH after optimisation of the plan, which was performed on the same image sets. To evaluate the feasibility of this method, the range of KBP DVH uncertainties was compared with the gains obtained from re-planning. DVH differences and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were used for this purpose. On average, final KBP uncertainties were smaller than the gain in re-planning. Statistical tests confirmed significant differences between the two groups. ROC analysis showed KBP performance in terms of area under the curve values higher than 0.7, which confirmed a good accuracy in predicted values. Overall, for 48% of cases, KBP predicted a desirable outcome from re-planning, and the final dose confirmed an effective gain in 47% of cases. We have established a systematic workflow to identify effective OAR sparing in re-planning based on KBP predictions that can be implemented in an on-line, ART process.

Reducing variability among treatment machines using knowledge-based planning for head and neck, pancreatic, and rectal cancer

Purpose

This study aimed to assess dosimetric indices of RapidPlan model‐based plans for different energies (6, 8, 10, and 15 MV; 6‐ and 10‐MV flattening filter‐free), multileaf collimator (MLC) types (Millennium 120, High Definition 120, dual‐layer MLC), and disease sites (head and neck, pancreatic, and rectal cancer) and compare these parameters with those of clinical plans.

Methods

RapidPlan models in the Eclipse version 15.6 were used with the data of 28, 42, and 20 patients with head and neck, pancreatic, and rectal cancer, respectively. RapidPlan models of head and neck, pancreatic, and rectal cancer were created for TrueBeam STx (High Definition 120) with 6 MV, TrueBeam STx with 10‐MV flattening filter‐free, and Clinac iX (Millennium 120) with 15 MV, respectively. The models were used to create volumetric‐modulated arc therapy plans for a 10‐patient test dataset using all energy and MLC types at all disease sites. The Holm test was used to compare multiple dosimetric indices in different treatment machines and energy types.

Results

The dosimetric indices for planning target volume and organs at risk in RapidPlan model‐based plans were comparable to those in the clinical plan. Furthermore, no dose difference was observed among the RapidPlan models. The variability among RapidPlan models was consistent regardless of the treatment machines, MLC types, and energy.

Conclusions

Dosimetric indices of RapidPlan model‐based plans appear to be comparable to the ones based on clinical plans regardless of energies, MLC types, and disease sites. The results suggest that the RapidPlan model can generate treatment plans independent of the type of treatment machine.

Development and clinical validation of Knowledge-based planning for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy of cervical cancer including pelvic and para aortic fields

•

A knowledge-based planning model was configured for VMAT of cervical cancer.

•

Knowledge-based plans were comparable, and for some OARs, outperformed clinical plans.

•

Improved organ sparing was observed, when individual patient geometry was considered.

Background and Purpose

Knowledge-based planning (KBP) is based on a model to estimate dose-volume histograms, configured using a library of historical treatment plans to efficiently create high quality plans. The aim was to report configuration and validation of KBP for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy of cervical cancer.

Materials and methods

A KBP model was configured from the institutional database (n = 125), including lymph node positive (n = 60) and negative (n = 65) patients. KBP Predicted plans were compared with Clinical Plans (CP) and Re-plans (Predicted plan as a base-plan) to validate the model. Model quality was quantified using coefficient of determination R2, mean square error (MSE), standard two-tailed paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed rank test.

Results

Estimation capability of the model was good for the bowel bag (MSE = 0.001, R2 = 0.84), modest for the bladder (MSE = 0.008) and poor for the rectum (MSE = 0.02 R2 = 0.78). KBP resulted in comparable target coverage, superior organ sparing as compared to CP. Re-plans outperformed CP for the bladder, V30 (66 ± 11% vs 74 ± 11%, p < .001), V40 (48 ± 14% vs 52 ± 14%, p < .001), however sparing was modest for the bowel bag V30 (413 ± 191cm³ vs 445 ± 208cm³, p = .037) V40 (199 ± 105cm³ vs 218 ± 127cm³, p = .031). All plans were comparable for rectum, while KBP resulted in significant sparing for spinal cord, kidneys and femoral heads.

Conclusion

KBP yielded comparable and for some organs superior performance compared to CP resulting in conformal and homogeneous target coverage. Improved organ sparing was observed when individual patient geometry was considered.

Optimal beam angle selection and knowledge-based planning significantly reduces radiotherapy dose to organs at risk for lung cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer patients struggle with high toxicity rates. This study investigates if IMRT plans with individually set beam angles or uni-lateral VMAT plans results in dose reduction to OARs. We investigate if introduction of a RapidPlan model leads to reduced dose to OARs. Finally, the model is validated prospectively.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Seventy-four consecutive lung cancer patients treated with IMRT were included. For all patients, new IMRT plans were made by an experienced dose planner re-tuning beam angles aiming for minimized dose to the lungs and heart. Additionally, VMAT plans were made. The IMRT plans were selected as input for a RapidPlan model, which was used to generate 74 new IMRT plans. The new IMRT plans were used as input for a second RapidPlan model. This model was clinically implemented and used for generation of clinical treatment plans. Dosimetric parameters were compared using a Wilcoxon signed rank test or a 1-sided student's t-test. p < .05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

IMRT plans significantly reduced mean doses to lungs (MLD) and heart (MHD) by 1.6 Gy and 1.7 Gy in mean compared to VMAT plans. MLD was significantly (p < .001) reduced from 10.8 Gy to 9.4 Gy by using the second RapidPlan model. MHD was significantly (p < .001) reduced from 4.9 Gy to 3.9 Gy. The model was validated in prospectively collected treatment plans showing significantly lower MLD after the implementation of the second RapidPlan model.

CONCLUSION

Introduction of RapidPlan and beam angles selected based on the target and OARs position reduces dose to OARs.

Clinical iterative model development improves knowledge-based plan quality for high-risk prostate cancer with four integrated dose levels

BACKGROUND

Manual volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment planning for high-risk prostate cancer receiving whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) with four integrated dose levels is complex and time consuming. We have investigated if the radiotherapy planning process and plan quality can be improved using a well-tuned model developed through a commercial system for knowledge-based planning (KBP).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Treatment plans from 69 patients treated for high-risk prostate cancer with manually planned VMAT were used to develop an initial KBP model (RapidPlan, RP). Prescribed doses were 50, 60, 67.5, and 72.5 Gy in 25 fractions to the pelvic lymph nodes, prostate and seminal vesicles, prostate gland, and prostate tumour(s), respectively. This RP model was in clinical use from July 2019 to February 2020, producing another set of 69 clinically delivered treatment plans for a new patient group, which were used to develop a second RP model. Both models were validated on an independent group of 40 patients. Plan quality was compared by D _98% and the Paddick conformity index for targets, mean dose (D _mean) and generalised equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) for bladder, bowel bag and rectum, and number of monitor units (MU).

RESULTS

Target coverage and conformity was similar between manually created and RP treatment plans. Compared to the manually created treatment plans, the final RP model reduced average D _mean and gEUD with 2.7 Gy and 1.3 Gy for bladder, 1.2 Gy and 0.9 Gy for bowel bag, and 2.7 Gy and 0.8 Gy for rectum, respectively (p < .05). For rectum, the interpatient variation (i.e., 95% confidence interval) of DVHs was reduced by 23%.

CONCLUSION

KBP improved plan quality and consistency among treatment plans for high-risk prostate cancer. Model tuning using KBP-based clinical plans further improved model outcome.

An Automated knowledge-based planning routine for stereotactic body radiotherapy of peripheral lung tumors via DCA-based volumetric modulated arc therapy

Purpose

To develop a knowledge‐based planning (KBP) routine for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of peripherally located early‐stage non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumors via dynamic conformal arc (DCA)‐based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using the commercially available RapidPlan^TM software. This proposed technique potentially improves plan quality, reduces complexity, and minimizes interplay effect and small‐field dosimetry errors associated with treatment delivery.

Methods

KBP model was developed and validated using 70 clinically treated high quality non‐coplanar VMAT lung SBRT plans for training and 20 independent plans for validation. All patients were treated with 54 Gy in three treatments. Additionally, a novel k‐DCA planning routine was deployed to create plans incorporating historical three‐dimensional‐conformal SBRT planning practices via DCA‐based approach prior to VMAT optimization in an automated planning engine. Conventional KBPs and k‐DCA plans were compared with clinically treated plans per RTOG‐0618 requirements for target conformity, tumor dose heterogeneity, intermediate dose fall‐off and organs‐at‐risk (OAR) sparing. Treatment planning time, treatment delivery efficiency, and accuracy were recorded.

Results

KBPs and k‐DCA plans were similar or better than clinical plans. Average planning target volume for validation was 22.4 ± 14.1 cc (7.1–62.3 cc). KBPs and k‐DCA plans provided similar conformity to clinical plans with average absolute differences of 0.01 and 0.01, respectively. Maximal doses to OAR were lowered in both KBPs and k‐DCA plans. KBPs increased monitor units (MU) on average 1316 (P < 0.001) while k‐DCA reduced total MU on average by 1114 (P < 0.001). This routine can create k‐DCA plan in less than 30 min. Independent Monte Carlo calculation demonstrated that k‐DCA plans showed better agreement with planned dose distribution.

Conclusion

A k‐DCA planning routine was developed in concurrence with a knowledge‐based approach for the treatment of peripherally located lung tumors. This method minimizes plan complexity associated with model‐based KBP techniques and improve plan quality and treatment planning efficiency.

Volumetric modulated arc therapy versus intensity-modulated proton therapy in neoadjuvant irradiation of locally advanced oesophageal cancer

Background

To investigate the role of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), realised with RapidArc and RapidPlan methods (RA_RP) for neoadjuvant radiotherapy in locally advanced oesophagal cancer.

Methods

Twenty patients were retrospectively planned for IMPT (with two fields, (IMPT_2F) or with three fields (IMPT_3F)) and RA_RP and the results were compared according to dose-volume metrics. Estimates of the excess absolute risk (EAR) of secondary cancer induction were determined for the lungs. For the cardiac structures, the relative risk (RR) of coronary artery disease (CAD) and chronic heart failure (CHF) were estimated.

Results

Both the RA_RP and IMPT approached allowed to achieve the required coverage for the gross tumour volume, (GTV) and the clinical and the planning target volumes, CTV and PTV (V_98% > 98 for CTV and GTV and V_95% > 95 for the PTV)). The conformity index resulted in 0.88 ± 0.01, 0.89 ± 0.02 and 0.89 ± 0.02 for RA_RP, IMPT_2F and IMPT_3F respectively. With the same order, the homogeneity index for the PTV resulted in 5.6 ± 0.6%, 4.4 ± 0.9% and 4.5 ± 0.8%. Concerning the organs at risk, the IMPT plans showed a systematic and statistically significant incremental sparing when compared to RA_RP, especially for the heart. The mean dose to the combined lungs was 8.6 ± 2.9 Gy for RA_RP, 3.2 ± 1.5 Gy and 2.9 ± 1.2 Gy for IMPT_2F and IMPT_3F. The mean dose to the whole heart resulted to 9.9 ± 1.9 Gy for RA_RP compared to 3.7 ± 1.3 Gy or 4.0 ± 1.4 Gy for IMPT_2F or IMPT_3F; the mean dose to the left ventricle resulted to 6.5 ± 1.6 Gy, 1.9 ± 1.5 Gy, 1.9 ± 1.6 Gy respectively. Similar sparing effects were observed for the liver, the kidneys, the stomach, the spleen and the bowels.

The EAR per 10,000 patients-years of secondary cancer induction resulted in 19.2 ± 5.7 for RA_RP and 6.1 ± 2.7 for IMPT_2F or 5.7 ± 2.4 for IMPT_3F. The RR for the left ventricle resulted in 1.5 ± 0.1 for RA_RP and 1.1 ± 0.1 for both IMPT sets. For the coronaries, the RR resulted in 1.6 ± 0.4 for RA_RP and 1.2 ± 0.3 for protons.

Conclusion

With regard to cancer of the oesophagogastric junction type I and II, the use of intensity-modulated proton therapy seems to have a clear advantage over VMAT. In particular, the reduction of the heart and abdominal structures dose could result in an optimised side effect profile. Furthermore, reduced risk of secondary neoplasia in the lung can be expected in long-term survivors and would be a great gain for cured patients.