An Automated Treatment Plan Quality Control Tool for Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Using a Voxel-Weighting Factor-Based Re-Optimization Algorithm.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) currently plays an important role in radiotherapy, but its treatment plan quality can vary significantly among institutions and planners. Treatment plan quality control (QC) is a necessary component for individual clinics to ensure that patients receive treatments with high therapeutic gain ratios. The voxel-weighting factor-based plan re-optimization mechanism has been proved able to explore a larger Pareto surface (solution domain) and therefore increase the possibility of finding an optimal treatment plan. In this study, we incorporated additional modules into an in-house developed voxel weighting factor-based re-optimization algorithm, which was enhanced as a highly automated and accurate IMRT plan QC tool (TPS-QC tool). After importing an under-assessment plan, the TPS-QC tool was able to generate a QC report within 2 minutes. This QC report contains the plan quality determination as well as information supporting the determination. Finally, the IMRT plan quality can be controlled by approving quality-passed plans and replacing quality-failed plans using the TPS-QC tool. The feasibility and accuracy of the proposed TPS-QC tool were evaluated using 25 clinically approved cervical cancer patient IMRT plans and 5 manually created poor-quality IMRT plans. The results showed high consistency between the QC report quality determinations and the actual plan quality. In the 25 clinically approved cases that the TPS-QC tool identified as passed, a greater difference could be observed for dosimetric endpoints for organs at risk (OAR) than for planning target volume (PTV), implying that better dose sparing could be achieved in OAR than in PTV. In addition, the dose-volume histogram (DVH) curves of the TPS-QC tool re-optimized plans satisfied the dosimetric criteria more frequently than did the under-assessment plans. In addition, the criteria for unsatisfied dosimetric endpoints in the 5 poor-quality plans could typically be satisfied when the TPS-QC tool generated re-optimized plans without sacrificing other dosimetric endpoints. In addition to its feasibility and accuracy, the proposed TPS-QC tool is also user-friendly and easy to operate, both of which are necessary characteristics for clinical use

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

Viability of Non-Coplanar VMAT for Liver SBRT as Compared to Coplanar VMAT and Beam Orientation Optimized 4π IMRT.

PurposeThe 4π static non-coplanar radiotherapy delivery technique has demonstrated better normal tissue sparing and dose conformity than the clinically used volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). It is unclear whether this is a fundamental limitation of VMAT delivery or the coplanar nature of its typical clinical plans. The dosimetry and the limits of normal tissue toxicity constrained dose escalation of coplanar VMAT, non-coplanar VMAT and 4π radiotherapy are quantified in this study.Methods and materialsClinical stereotactic body radiation therapy plans for 20 liver patients receiving 30-60 Gy using coplanar VMAT (cVMAT) were re-planned using 3-4 partial non-coplanar arcs (nVMAT) and 4π with 20 intensity-modulated non-coplanar fields. The conformity number (CN), homogeneity index (HI), 50% dose spillage volume (R50), normal liver volume receiving >15 Gy (VL>15), dose to organs at risk (OARs), and tumor control probability (TCP) were compared for all three treatment plans. The maximum tolerable dose (MTD) yielding a normal liver normal tissue control probability (NTCP) below 1%, 5%, and 10% was calculated with the Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model for each plan, as well as the resulting survival fractions at one, two, three, and four years.ResultsCompared to cVMAT, the nVMAT and 4π plans reduced VL>15 by an average of 5 cm3 and 80 cm3, respectively. 4π reduced the 50% dose spillage volume by ~23% compared to both VMAT plans, and either significantly decreased or maintained OAR doses. The 4π MTDs and survival fractions were significantly higher than both cVMAT and nVMAT (p<0.05) for all normal liver NTCP limits used in this study.ConclusionsThe 4π technique provides significantly better OAR sparing than both cVMAT and vMAT and enables more clinically relevant dose escalation for tumor local control. Therefore, despite the current accessibility of nVMAT, it is not a viable alternative to 4π for liver SBRT

Performance Comparison of Knowledge-Based Dose Prediction Techniques Based on Limited Patient Data.

PurposeThe accuracy of dose prediction is essential for knowledge-based planning and automated planning techniques. We compare the dose prediction accuracy of 3 prediction methods including statistical voxel dose learning, spectral regression, and support vector regression based on limited patient training data.MethodsStatistical voxel dose learning, spectral regression, and support vector regression were used to predict the dose of noncoplanar intensity-modulated radiation therapy (4π) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy head and neck, 4π lung, and volumetric-modulated arc therapy prostate plans. Twenty cases of each site were used for k-fold cross-validation, with k = 4. Statistical voxel dose learning bins voxels according to their Euclidean distance to the planning target volume and uses the median to predict the dose of new voxels. Distance to the planning target volume, polynomial combinations of the distance components, planning target volume, and organ at risk volume were used as features for spectral regression and support vector regression. A total of 28 features were included. Principal component analysis was performed on the input features to test the effect of dimension reduction. For the coplanar volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans, separate models were trained for voxels within the same axial slice as planning target volume voxels and voxels outside the primary beam. The effect of training separate models for each organ at risk compared to all voxels collectively was also tested. The mean squared error was calculated to evaluate the voxel dose prediction accuracy.ResultsStatistical voxel dose learning using separate models for each organ at risk had the lowest root mean squared error for all sites and modalities: 3.91 Gy (head and neck 4π), 3.21 Gy (head and neck volumetric-modulated arc therapy), 2.49 Gy (lung 4π), and 2.35 Gy (prostate volumetric-modulated arc therapy). Compared to using the original features, principal component analysis reduced the 4π prediction error for head and neck spectral regression (-43.9%) and support vector regression (-42.8%) and lung support vector regression (-24.4%) predictions. Principal component analysis was more effective in using all/most of the possible principal components. Separate organ at risk models were more accurate than training on all organ at risk voxels in all cases.ConclusionCompared with more sophisticated parametric machine learning methods with dimension reduction, statistical voxel dose learning is more robust to patient variability and provides the most accurate dose prediction method

Converting Treatment Plans From Helical Tomotherapy to L-Shape Linac: Clinical Workflow and Dosimetric Evaluation.

This work evaluated a commercial fallback planning workflow designed to provide cross-platform treatment planning and delivery. A total of 27 helical tomotherapy intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans covering 4 anatomical sites were selected, including 7 brain, 5 unilateral head and neck, 5 bilateral head and neck, 5 pelvis, and 5 prostate cases. All helical tomotherapy plans were converted to 7-field/9-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-modulated radiotherapy plans through fallback dose-mimicking algorithm using a 6-MV beam model. The planning target volume (PTV) coverage ( D1, D99, and homogeneity index) and organs at risk dose constraints were evaluated and compared. Overall, all 3 techniques resulted in relatively inferior target dose coverage compared to helical tomotherapy plans, with higher homogeneity index and maximum dose. The organs at risk dose ratio of fallback to helical tomotherapy plans covered a wide spectrum, from 0.87 to 1.11 on average for all sites, with fallback plans being superior for brain, pelvis, and prostate sites. The quality of fallback plans depends on the delivery technique, field numbers, and angles, as well as user selection of structures for organs at risk. In actual clinical scenario, fallback plans would typically be needed for 1 to 5 fractions of a treatment course in the event of machine breakdown. Our results suggested that <1% dose variance can be introduced in target coverage and/or organs at risk from fallback plans. The presented clinical workflow showed that the fallback plan generation typically takes 10 to 20 minutes per case. Fallback planning provides an expeditious and effective strategy for transferring patients cross platforms, and minimizing the untold risk of a patient missing treatment(s)

Three-Dimensional Dose Prediction for Lung IMRT Patients with Deep Neural Networks: Robust Learning from Heterogeneous Beam Configurations

The use of neural networks to directly predict three-dimensional dose distributions for automatic planning is becoming popular. However, the existing methods only use patient anatomy as input and assume consistent beam configuration for all patients in the training database. The purpose of this work is to develop a more general model that, in addition to patient anatomy, also considers variable beam configurations, to achieve a more comprehensive automatic planning with a potentially easier clinical implementation, without the need of training specific models for different beam settings

Early biomarkers related to secondary primary cancer risk in radiotherapy treated prostate cancer patients: IMRT versus IMAT

AbstractPurposeTo investigate whether rotational techniques (Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy – VMAT) are associated with a higher risk for secondary primary malignancies compared to step-and-shoot Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (ss-IMRT). To this end, radiation therapy (RT) induced DNA double-strand-breaks and the resulting chromosomal damage were assessed in peripheral blood T-lymphocytes of prostate cancer (PCa) patients applying γH2AX foci and G0 micronucleus (MN) assays.Methods and materialsThe study comprised 33PCa patients. A blood sample was taken before start of therapy and after the 1st and 3rd RT fraction to determine respectively the RT-induced γH2AX foci and MN. The equivalent total body dose (DETB) was calculated based on treatment planning data.ResultsA linear dose response was obtained for γH2AX foci yields versus DETB while MN showed a linear-quadratic dose response. Patients treated with large volume (LV) VMAT show a significantly higher level of induced γH2AX foci and MN compared to IMRT and small volume (SV) VMAT (p<0.01). Assuming a linear-quadratic relationship, a satisfactory correlation was found between both endpoints (R2 0.86).ConclusionsBiomarker responses were governed by dose and irradiated volume of normal tissues. No significant differences between IMRT and rotational therapy inherent to the technique itself were observed

Computational delineation and quantitative heterogeneity analysis of lung tumor on 18F-FDG PET for radiation dose-escalation

© 2018 The Author(s). Quantitative measurement and analysis of tumor metabolic activities could provide a more optimal solution to personalized accurate dose painting. We collected PET images of 58 lung cancer patients, in which the tumor exhibits heterogeneous FDG uptake. We design an automated delineation and quantitative heterogeneity measurement of the lung tumor for dose-escalation. For tumor delineation, our algorithm firstly separates the tumor from its adjacent high-uptake tissues using 3D projection masks; then the tumor boundary is delineated with our stopping criterion of joint gradient and intensity affinities. For dose-escalation, tumor sub-volumes with low, moderate and high metabolic activities are extracted and measured. Based on our quantitative heterogeneity measurement, a sub-volume oriented dose-escalation plan is implemented in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning system. With respect to manual tumor delineations by two radiation oncologists, the paired t-test demonstrated our model outperformed the other computational methods in comparison (p 0.05)