Dataset Information

Knowledge-Based Tradeoff Hyperplanes for Head and Neck Treatment Planning.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To develop a tradeoff hyperplane model to facilitate tradeoff decision-making before inverse planning.

Methods and materials

We propose a model-based approach to determine the tradeoff hyperplanes that allow physicians to navigate the clinically viable space of plans with best achievable dose-volume parameters before planning. For a given case, a case reference set (CRS) is selected using a novel anatomic similarity metric from a large reference plan pool. Then, a regression model is built on the CRS to estimate the expected dose-volume histograms (DVHs) for the current case. This model also predicts the DVHs for all CRS cases and captures the variation from the corresponding DVHs in the clinical plans. Finally, these DVH variations are analyzed using the principal component analysis to determine the tradeoff hyperplane for the current case. To evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed approach, 244 head and neck cases were randomly partitioned into reference (214) and validation (30) sets. A tradeoff hyperplane was built for each validation case and evenly sampled for 12 tradeoff predictions. Each prediction yielded a tradeoff plan. The root-mean-square errors of the predicted and the realized plan DVHs were computed for prediction achievability evaluation.

Results

The tradeoff hyperplane with 3 principal directions accounts for 57.8% ± 3.6% of variations in the validation cases, suggesting the hyperplanes capture a significant portion of the clinical tradeoff space. The average root-mean-square errors in 3 tradeoff directions are 5.23 ± 2.46, 5.20 ± 2.52, and 5.19 ± 2.49, compared with 4.96 ± 2.48 of the knowledge-based planning predictions, indicating that the tradeoff predictions are comparably achievable.

Conclusions

Clinically relevant tradeoffs can be effectively extracted from existing plans and characterized by a tradeoff hyperplane model. The hyperplane allows physicians and planners to explore the best clinically achievable plans with different organ-at-risk sparing goals before inverse planning and is a natural extension of the current knowledge-based planning framework.

SUBMITTER: Zhang J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7078019 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy offers dosimetric advantages for several treatment sites, including head and neck (H&N). However, to achieve the optimal target coverage and robustness, these plans can be complex and time consuming to develop and optimize. Automating the treatment planning process can ensure a high-quality and standardized plan, reduce burden to the planner, and decrease time-to-treatment. We utilized in-house scripting to automate a four-field multi-field optimization (MFO) H&N planning technique.Methods and materialsTen bilateral H&N patients were planned in RayStation v6 with a four-field modified-X beam configuration using MFO planning. Automation included creation of avoidance structures to control spot placement and development of standardized beams, PBS spot settings, robust optimization objectives, and patient-specific predicted planning constraints. Each patient was planned both with and without automation to evaluate differences in planning time, perceived effort and plan quality, plan robustness, and OAR sparing.ResultsOn average, scripted plans required 3.2 h, compared to 4.3 h without the script. There was no difference in target coverage or plan robustness with or without automation. Automation significantly reduced mean dose to the oral cavity, parotids, esophagus, trachea, and larynx. Perceived effort was scaled from 1 (minimum effort) to 100 (maximum effort), and automation reduced perceived effort by 42% (p < 0.05). Two non-scripted plans required re-planning due to errors.ConclusionsAutomation of this multi-beam, the MFO proton planning process reduced planning time and improved OAR sparing compared to the same planning process without scripting. Scripting generation of complex structures and planning objectives reduced burden on the planner. With most current treatment planning software, this automation is simple to implement and can standardize quality of care across all treatment planners.

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate pix2pix and CycleGAN and to assess the effects of multiple combination strategies on accuracy for patch-based synthetic computed tomography (sCT) generation for magnetic resonance (MR)-only treatment planning in head and neck (HN) cancer patients.Materials and methodsTwenty-three deformably registered pairs of CT and mDixon FFE MR datasets from HN cancer patients treated at our institution were retrospectively analyzed to evaluate patch-based sCT accuracy via the pix2pix and CycleGAN models. To test effects of overlapping sCT patches on estimations, we (a) trained the models for three orthogonal views to observe the effects of spatial context, (b) we increased effective set size by using per-epoch data augmentation, and (c) we evaluated the performance of three different approaches for combining overlapping Hounsfield unit (HU) estimations for varied patch overlap parameters. Twelve of twenty-three cases corresponded to a curated dataset previously used for atlas-based sCT generation and were used for training with leave-two-out cross-validation. Eight cases were used for independent testing and included previously unseen image features such as fused vertebrae, a small protruding bone, and tumors large enough to deform normal body contours. We analyzed the impact of MR image preprocessing including histogram standardization and intensity clipping on sCT generation accuracy. Effects of mDixon contrast (in-phase vs water) differences were tested with three additional cases. The sCT generation accuracy was evaluated using mean absolute error (MAE) and mean error (ME) in HU between the plan CT and sCT images. Dosimetric accuracy was evaluated for all clinically relevant structures in the independent testing set and digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) were evaluated with respect to the plan CT images.ResultsThe cross-validated MAEs for the whole-HN region using pix2pix and CycleGAN were 66.9 ± 7.3 vs 82.3 ± 6.4 HU, respectively. On the independent testing set with additional artifacts and previously unseen image features, whole-HN region MAEs were 94.0 ± 10.6 and 102.9 ± 14.7 HU for pix2pix and CycleGAN, respectively. For patients with different tissue contrast (water mDixon MR images), the MAEs increased to 122.1 ± 6.3 and 132.8 ± 5.5 HU for pix2pix and CycleGAN, respectively. Our results suggest that combining overlapping sCT estimations at each voxel reduced both MAE and ME compared to single-view non-overlapping patch results. Absolute percent mean/max dose errors were 2% or less for the PTV and all clinically relevant structures in our independent testing set, including structures with image artifacts. Quantitative DRR comparison between planning CTs and sCTs showed agreement of bony region positions to <1 mm.ConclusionsThe dosimetric and MAE based accuracy, along with the similarity between DRRs from sCTs, indicate that pix2pix and CycleGAN are promising methods for MR-only treatment planning for HN cancer. Our methods investigated for overlapping patch-based HU estimations also indicate that combining transformation estimations of overlapping patches is a potential method to reduce generation errors while also providing a tool to potentially estimate the MR to CT aleatoric model transformation uncertainty. However, because of small patient sample sizes, further studies are required.

Project description:IntroductionOrgan-at-risk segmentation for head and neck cancer radiation therapy is a complex and time-consuming process (requiring up to 42 individual structure, and may delay start of treatment or even limit access to function-preserving care. Feasibility of using a deep learning (DL) based autosegmentation model to reduce contouring time without compromising contour accuracy is assessed through a blinded randomized trial of radiation oncologists (ROs) using retrospective, de-identified patient data.MethodsTwo head and neck expert ROs used dedicated time to create gold standard (GS) contours on computed tomography (CT) images. 445 CTs were used to train a custom 3D U-Net DL model covering 42 organs-at-risk, with an additional 20 CTs were held out for the randomized trial. For each held-out patient dataset, one of the eight participant ROs was randomly allocated to review and revise the contours produced by the DL model, while another reviewed contours produced by a medical dosimetry assistant (MDA), both blinded to their origin. Time required for MDAs and ROs to contour was recorded, and the unrevised DL contours, as well as the RO-revised contours by the MDAs and DL model were compared to the GS for that patient.ResultsMean time for initial MDA contouring was 2.3 hours (range 1.6-3.8 hours) and RO-revision took 1.1 hours (range, 0.4-4.4 hours), compared to 0.7 hours (range 0.1-2.0 hours) for the RO-revisions to DL contours. Total time reduced by 76% (95%-Confidence Interval: 65%-88%) and RO-revision time reduced by 35% (95%-CI,-39%-91%). All geometric and dosimetric metrics computed, agreement with GS was equivalent or significantly greater (p<0.05) for RO-revised DL contours compared to the RO-revised MDA contours, including volumetric Dice similarity coefficient (VDSC), surface DSC, added path length, and the 95%-Hausdorff distance. 32 OARs (76%) had mean VDSC greater than 0.8 for the RO-revised DL contours, compared to 20 (48%) for RO-revised MDA contours, and 34 (81%) for the unrevised DL OARs.ConclusionDL autosegmentation demonstrated significant time-savings for organ-at-risk contouring while improving agreement with the institutional GS, indicating comparable accuracy of DL model. Integration into the clinical practice with a prospective evaluation is currently underway.

Project description:Head and neck cancers centered at the base of skull are better visualized on MRI than on CT. The purpose of this investigation was to investigate the accuracy of bulk density assignment in head and neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plan optimization. Our study investigates dose calculation differences between density-assigned MRI and CT, and identifies potential limitations related to dental implants and MRI geometrical distortion in the framework of MRI-only-based treatment planning. Bulk density assignment was performed and applied onto MRI to generate three MRI image sets with increasing levels of heterogeneity for seven patients: 1) MRIW: all water-equivalent; 2) MRIW+B: included bone with density of 1.53 g/cm3; and 3) MRIW+B+A: included bone and air. Using identical planning and optimization parameters, MRI-based IMRT plans were generated and compared to corresponding, forward-calculated, CT-based plans on the basis of target coverage, isodose distributions, and dose-volume histograms (DVHs). Phantom studies were performed to assess the magnitude and spatial dependence of MRI geometrical distortion. MRIW-based dose calculations overestimated target coverage by 16.1%. Segmentation of bone reduced differences to within 2% of the coverage area on the CT-based plan. Further segmentation of air improved conformity near air-tissue interfaces. Dental artifacts caused substantial target coverage overestimation even on MRIW+B+A. Geometrical distortion was less than 1 mm in an imaging volume 20 × 20 × 20 cm3 around scanner isocenter, but up to 4 mm at 17 cm lateral to isocenter. Bulk density assignment in the framework of MRI-only IMRT head and neck treatment planning is a feasible method with certain limitations. Bone and teeth account for the majority of density heterogeneity effects. While soft tissue is well visualized on MRI compared to CT, dental implants may not be visible on MRI and must be identified by other means and assigned appropriate density for accurate dose calculation. Far off-center geometrical distortion of the body contour near the shoulder region is a potential source of dose calculation inaccuracy.