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

Cancer diagnosis using deep learning: A bibliographic review

In this paper, we first describe the basics of the field of cancer diagnosis, which includes steps of cancer diagnosis followed by the typical classification methods used by doctors, providing a historical idea of cancer classification techniques to the readers. These methods include Asymmetry, Border, Color and Diameter (ABCD) method, seven-point detection method, Menzies method, and pattern analysis. They are used regularly by doctors for cancer diagnosis, although they are not considered very efficient for obtaining better performance. Moreover, considering all types of audience, the basic evaluation criteria are also discussed. The criteria include the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC curve), Area under the ROC curve (AUC), F1 score, accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, precision, dice-coefficient, average accuracy, and Jaccard index. Previously used methods are considered inefficient, asking for better and smarter methods for cancer diagnosis. Artificial intelligence and cancer diagnosis are gaining attention as a way to define better diagnostic tools. In particular, deep neural networks can be successfully used for intelligent image analysis. The basic framework of how this machine learning works on medical imaging is provided in this study, i.e., pre-processing, image segmentation and post-processing. The second part of this manuscript describes the different deep learning techniques, such as convolutional neural networks (CNNs), generative adversarial models (GANs), deep autoencoders (DANs), restricted Boltzmann’s machine (RBM), stacked autoencoders (SAE), convolutional autoencoders (CAE), recurrent neural networks (RNNs), long short-term memory (LTSM), multi-scale convolutional neural network (M-CNN), multi-instance learning convolutional neural network (MIL-CNN). For each technique, we provide Python codes, to allow interested readers to experiment with the cited algorithms on their own diagnostic problems. The third part of this manuscript compiles the successfully applied deep learning models for different types of cancers. Considering the length of the manuscript, we restrict ourselves to the discussion of breast cancer, lung cancer, brain cancer, and skin cancer. The purpose of this bibliographic review is to provide researchers opting to work in implementing deep learning and artificial neural networks for cancer diagnosis a knowledge from scratch of the state-of-the-art achievements

Exploratory analysis using machine learning to predict for chest wall pain in patients with stage I non-small-cell lung cancer treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy.

Background and purposeChest wall toxicity is observed after stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for peripherally located lung tumors. We utilize machine learning algorithms to identify toxicity predictors to develop dose-volume constraints.Materials and methodsTwenty-five patient, tumor, and dosimetric features were recorded for 197 consecutive patients with Stage I NSCLC treated with SBRT, 11 of whom (5.6%) developed CTCAEv4 grade ≥2 chest wall pain. Decision tree modeling was used to determine chest wall syndrome (CWS) thresholds for individual features. Significant features were determined using independent multivariate methods. These methods incorporate out-of-bag estimation using Random forests (RF) and bootstrapping (100 iterations) using decision trees.ResultsUnivariate analysis identified rib dose to 1 cc < 4000 cGy (P = 0.01), chest wall dose to 30 cc < 1900 cGy (P = 0.035), rib Dmax < 5100 cGy (P = 0.05) and lung dose to 1000 cc < 70 cGy (P = 0.039) to be statistically significant thresholds for avoiding CWS. Subsequent multivariate analysis confirmed the importance of rib dose to 1 cc, chest wall dose to 30 cc, and rib Dmax. Using learning-curve experiments, the dataset proved to be self-consistent and provides a realistic model for CWS analysis.ConclusionsUsing machine learning algorithms in this first of its kind study, we identify robust features and cutoffs predictive for the rare clinical event of CWS. Additional data in planned subsequent multicenter studies will help increase the accuracy of multivariate analysis

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

An Alarm System For Segmentation Algorithm Based On Shape Model

It is usually hard for a learning system to predict correctly on rare events that never occur in the training data, and there is no exception for segmentation algorithms. Meanwhile, manual inspection of each case to locate the failures becomes infeasible due to the trend of large data scale and limited human resource. Therefore, we build an alarm system that will set off alerts when the segmentation result is possibly unsatisfactory, assuming no corresponding ground truth mask is provided. One plausible solution is to project the segmentation results into a low dimensional feature space; then learn classifiers/regressors to predict their qualities. Motivated by this, in this paper, we learn a feature space using the shape information which is a strong prior shared among different datasets and robust to the appearance variation of input data.The shape feature is captured using a Variational Auto-Encoder (VAE) network that trained with only the ground truth masks. During testing, the segmentation results with bad shapes shall not fit the shape prior well, resulting in large loss values. Thus, the VAE is able to evaluate the quality of segmentation result on unseen data, without using ground truth. Finally, we learn a regressor in the one-dimensional feature space to predict the qualities of segmentation results. Our alarm system is evaluated on several recent state-of-art segmentation algorithms for 3D medical segmentation tasks. Compared with other standard quality assessment methods, our system consistently provides more reliable prediction on the qualities of segmentation results.Comment: Accepted to ICCV 2019 (10 pages, 4 figures

Biomechanical Computed Tomography analysis (BCT) for clinical assessment of osteoporosis.

The surgeon general of the USA defines osteoporosis as "a skeletal disorder characterized by compromised bone strength, predisposing to an increased risk of fracture." Measuring bone strength, Biomechanical Computed Tomography analysis (BCT), namely, finite element analysis of a patient's clinical-resolution computed tomography (CT) scan, is now available in the USA as a Medicare screening benefit for osteoporosis diagnostic testing. Helping to address under-diagnosis of osteoporosis, BCT can be applied "opportunistically" to most existing CT scans that include the spine or hip regions and were previously obtained for an unrelated medical indication. For the BCT test, no modifications are required to standard clinical CT imaging protocols. The analysis provides measurements of bone strength as well as a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-equivalent bone mineral density (BMD) T-score at the hip and a volumetric BMD of trabecular bone at the spine. Based on both the bone strength and BMD measurements, a physician can identify osteoporosis and assess fracture risk (high, increased, not increased), without needing confirmation by DXA. To help introduce BCT to clinicians and health care professionals, we describe in this review the currently available clinical implementation of the test (VirtuOst), its application for managing patients, and the underlying supporting evidence; we also discuss its main limitations and how its results can be interpreted clinically. Together, this body of evidence supports BCT as an accurate and convenient diagnostic test for osteoporosis in both sexes, particularly when used opportunistically for patients already with CT. Biomechanical Computed Tomography analysis (BCT) uses a patient's CT scan to measure both bone strength and bone mineral density at the hip or spine. Performing at least as well as DXA for both diagnosing osteoporosis and assessing fracture risk, BCT is particularly well-suited to "opportunistic" use for the patient without a recent DXA who is undergoing or has previously undergone CT testing (including hip or spine regions) for an unrelated medical condition