Dataset Information

Fully automated treatment planning for MLC-based robotic radiotherapy.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To propose and validate a fully automated multicriterial treatment planning solution for a CyberKnife® equipped with an InCise^TM 2 multileaf collimator.

Methods

The AUTO BAO plans are generated using fully automated prioritized multicriterial optimization (AUTO MCO) of pencil-beam fluence maps with integrated noncoplanar beam angle optimization (BAO), followed by MLC segment generation. Both the AUTO MCO and segmentation algorithms have been developed in-house. AUTO MCO generates for each patient a single, high-quality Pareto-optimal IMRT plan. The segmentation algorithm then accurately mimics the AUTO MCO 3D dose distribution, while considering all candidate beams simultaneously, rather than replicating the fluence maps. Pencil-beams, segment dose depositions, and final dose calculations are performed with a stand-alone version of the clinical dose calculation engine. For validation, AUTO BAO plans were generated for 33 prostate SBRT patients and compared to reference plans (REF) that were manually generated with the commercial treatment planning system (TPS), in absence of time pressure. REF plans were also compared to AUTO RB plans, for which fluence map optimization was performed for the beam angle configuration used in the REF plan, and the segmentation could use all these beams or only a subset, depending on the dosimetry.

Results

AUTO BAO plans were clinically acceptable and dosimetrically similar to REF plans, but had on average reduced numbers of beams ((beams in AUTO BAO)/(beams in REF) (relative improvement): 24.7/48.3 (-49%)), segments (59.5/98.9 (-40%)), and delivery times (17.1/22.3 min. (-23%)). Dosimetry of AUTO RB and REF were also similar, but AUTO RB used on average fewer beams (38.0/48.3 (-21%)) and had on average shorter delivery times (18.6/22.3 min. (-17%)). Delivered Monitor Units (MU) were similar for all three planning approaches.

Conclusions

A new, vendor-independent optimization workflow for fully automated generation of deliverable high-quality CyberKnife® plans was proposed, including BAO. Compared to manual planning with the commercial TPS, fraction delivery times were reduced by 5.3 min. (-23%) due to large reductions in beam and segment numbers.

SUBMITTER: Schipaanboord BWK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8457110 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo develop and evaluate an automated whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) treatment planning pipeline with a deep learning-based auto-contouring and customizable landmark-based field aperture design.MethodsThe pipeline consisted of the following steps: (1) Auto-contour normal structures on computed tomography scans and digitally reconstructed radiographs using deep learning techniques, (2) locate the landmark structures using the beam's-eye-view, (3) generate field apertures based on eight different landmark rules addressing different clinical purposes and physician preferences. Two parallel approaches for generating field apertures were developed for quality control. The performance of the generated field shapes and dose distributions were compared with the original clinical plans. The clinical acceptability of the plans was assessed by five radiation oncologists from four hospitals.ResultsThe performance of the generated field apertures was evaluated by the Hausdorff distance (HD) and mean surface distance (MSD) from 182 patients' field apertures used in the clinic. The average HD and MSD for the generated field apertures were 16 ± 7 and 7 ± 3 mm for the first approach, respectively, and 17 ± 7 and 7 ± 3 mm, respectively, for the second approach. The differences regarding HD and MSD between the first and the second approaches were 1 ± 2 and 1 ± 3 mm, respectively. A clinical review of the field aperture design, conducted using 30 patients, achieved a 100% acceptance rate for both the first and second approaches, and the plan review achieved a 100% acceptance rate for the first approach and a 93% acceptance rate for the second approach. The average acceptance rate for meeting lens dosimetric recommendations was 80% (left lens) and 77% (right lens) for the first approach, and 70% (both left and right lenses) for the second approach, compared with 50% (left lens) and 53% (right lens) for the clinical plans.ConclusionThis study provided an automated pipeline with two field aperture generation approaches to automatically generate WBRT treatment plans. Both quantitative and qualitative evaluations demonstrated that our novel pipeline was comparable with the original clinical plans.

Project description:PurposeKnowledge-based planning (KBP) offers the ability to predict dose-volume metrics based on information extracted from previous plans, reducing plan variability and improving plan quality. As clinical integration of KBP is increasing there is a growing need for quantitative evaluation of KBP models. A .NET-based application, RapidCompare, was created for automated plan creation and analysis of Varian RapidPlan models.MethodsRapidCompare was designed to read calculation parameters and a list of reference plans. The tool copies the reference plan field geometry and structure set, applies the RapidPlan model, optimizes the KBP plan, and generates data for quantitative evaluation of dose-volume metrics. A cohort of 85 patients, divided into training (50), testing (10), and validation (25) groups, was used to demonstrate the utility of RapidCompare. After training and tuning, the KBP model was paired with three different optimization templates to compare various planning strategies in the validation cohort. All templates used the same set of constraints for the planning target volume (PTV). For organs-at-risk, the optimization template provided constraints using the whole dose-volume histogram (DVH), fixed-dose/volume points, or generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD). The resulting plans from each optimization approach were compared using DVH metrics.ResultsRapidCompare allowed for the automated generation of 75 total plans for comparison with limited manual intervention. In comparing optimization techniques, the Dose/Volume and Lines optimization templates generated plans with similar DVH metrics, with a slight preference for the Lines technique with reductions in heart V30Gy and spinal cord max dose. The gEUD model produced high target heterogeneity.ConclusionAutomated evaluation allowed for the exploration of multiple optimization templates in a larger validation cohort than would have been feasible using a manual approach. A final KBP model using line optimization objectives produced the highest quality plans without human intervention.

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.