Purpose We propose a novel domain‐specific loss, which is a differentiable loss function based on the dose‐volume histogram (DVH), and combine it with an adversarial loss for the training of deep neural networks. In this study, we trained a neural network for generating Pareto optimal dose distributions, and evaluate the effects of the domain‐specific loss on the model performance. Methods In this study, three loss functions — mean squared error (MSE) loss, DVH loss, and adversarial (ADV) loss — were used to train and compare four instances of the neural network model: (a) MSE, (b) MSE + ADV, (c) MSE + DVH, and (d) MSE + DVH+ADV. The data for 70 prostate patients, including the planning target volume (PTV), and the organs at risk (OAR) were acquired as 96 × 96 × 24 dimension arrays at 5 mm3 voxel size. The dose influence arrays were calculated for 70 prostate patients, using a 7 equidistant coplanar beam setup. Using a scalarized multicriteria optimization for intensity‐modulated radiation therapy, 1200 Pareto surface plans per patient were generated by pseudo‐randomizing the PTV and OAR tradeoff weights. With 70 patients, the total number of plans generated was 84 000 plans. We divided the data into 54 training, 6 validation, and 10 testing patients. Each model was trained for a total of 100,000 iterations, with a batch size of 2. All models used the Adam optimizer, with a learning rate of 1 × 10−3. Results Training for 100 000 iterations took 1.5 days (MSE), 3.5 days (MSE+ADV), 2.3 days (MSE+DVH), and 3.8 days (MSE+DVH+ADV). After training, the prediction time of each model is 0.052 s. Quantitatively, the MSE+DVH+ADV model had the lowest prediction error of 0.038 (conformation), 0.026 (homogeneity), 0.298 (R50), 1.65% (D95), 2.14% (D98), and 2.43% (D99). The MSE model had the worst prediction error of 0.134 (conformation), 0.041 (homogeneity), 0.520 (R50), 3.91% (D95), 4.33% (D98), and 4.60% (D99). For both the mean dose PTV error and the max dose PTV, Body, Bladder and rectum error, the MSE+DVH+ADV outperformed all other models. Regardless of model, all predictions have an average mean and max dose error <2.8% and 4.2%, respectively. Conclusion The MSE+DVH+ADV model performed the best in these categories, illustrating the importance of both human and learned domain knowledge. Expert human domain‐specific knowledge can be the largest driver in the performance improvement, and adversarial learning can be used to further capture nuanced attributes in the data. The real‐time prediction capabilities allow for a physician to quickly navigate the tradeoff space for a patient, and produce a dose distribution as a tangible endpoint for the dosimetrist to use for planning. This is expected to considerably reduce the treatment planning time, allowing for clinicians to focus their efforts on the difficult and demanding cases.

Radiotherapy treatment planning currently requires many trial-anderror iterations between the planner and treatment planning system, as well as between the planner and physician for discussion/consultation. The physician's preferences for a particular patient cannot be easily quantified and precisely conveyed to the planner. In this study we present a real-time volumetric Pareto surface dose generation deep learning neural network that can be used after segmentation by the physician, adding a tangible and quantifiable endpoint to portray to the planner. From 70 prostate patients, we first generated 84,000 intensity modulated radiation therapy plans (1,200 plans per patient) sampling the Pareto surface, representing various tradeoffs between the planning target volume (PTV) and the organs-at-risk (OAR), including bladder, rectum, left femur, right femur, and body. We divided the data to 10 test patients and 60 training/validation patients. We then trained a hierarchically densely connected convolutional U-net (HD U-net), to take the PTV and avoidance map representing OARs masks and weights, and predict the optimized plan. The HD U-net is capable of accurately predicting the 3D Pareto optimal dose distributions, with average [mean, max] dose errors of [3.4%, 7.7%](PTV), [1.6%, 5.6%](bladder), [3.7%, 4.2%](rectum), [3.2%, 8.0%](left femur), [2.9%, 7.7%](right femur), and [0.04%, 5.4%](body) of the prescription dose. The PTV dose coverage prediction was also very similar, with errors of 1.3% (D98) and 2.0% (D99). Homogeneity was also similar, differing by 0.06 on average. The neural network can predict the dose within 1.7 seconds. Clinically, the optimization and dose calculation is much slower, taking 5-10 minutes.

No abstract

Purpose Beam orientation selection, whether manual or protocol‐based, is the current clinical standard in radiation therapy treatment planning, but it is tedious and can yield suboptimal results. Many algorithms have been designed to optimize beam orientation selection because of its impact on treatment plan quality, but these algorithms suffer from slow calculation of the dose influence matrices of all candidate beams. We propose a fast beam orientation selection method, based on deep learning neural networks (DNN), capable of developing a plan comparable to those developed by the state‐of‐the‐art column generation (CG) method. Our model's novelty lies in its supervised learning structure (using CG to teach the network), DNN architecture, and ability to learn from anatomical features to predict dosimetrically suitable beam orientations without using dosimetric information from the candidate beams. This may save hours of computation. Methods A supervised DNN is trained to mimic the CG algorithm, which iteratively chooses beam orientations one‐by‐one by calculating beam fitness values based on Karush‐Kush‐Tucker optimality conditions at each iteration. The DNN learns to predict these values. The dataset contains 70 prostate cancer patients — 50 training, 7 validation, and 13 test patients — to develop and test the model. Each patient’s data contains 6 contours: PTV, body, bladder, rectum, and left and right femoral heads. Column generation was implemented with a GPU‐based Chambolle‐Pock algorithm, a first‐order primal‐dual proximal‐class algorithm, to create 6270 plans. The DNN trained over 400 epochs, each with 2500 steps and a batch size of 1, using the Adam optimizer at a learning rate of 1 × 10−5 and a sixfold cross‐validation technique. Results The average and standard deviation of training, validation, and testing loss functions among the six folds were 0.62 ± 0.09%, 1.04 ± 0.06%, and 1.44 ± 0.11%, respectively. Using CG and supervised DNN, we generated two sets of plans for each scenario in the test set. The proposed method took at most 1.5 s to select a set of five beam orientations and 300 s to calculate the dose influence matrices for 5 beams and finally 20 s to solve the fluence map optimization (FMO). However, CG needed around 15 h to calculate the dose influence matrices of all beams and at least 400 s to solve both the beam orientation selection and FMO problems. The differences in the dose coverage of PTV between plans generated by CG and by DNN were 0.2%. The average dose differences received by organs at risk were between 1 and 6 percent: Bladder had the smallest average difference in dose received (0.956 ± 1.184%), then Rectum (2.44 ± 2.11%), Left Femoral Head (6.03 ± 5.86%), and Right Femoral Head (5.885 ± 5.515%). The dose received by Body had an average difference of 0.10 ± 0.1% between the generated treatment plans. Conclusions We developed a fast beam orientation selection method based on a DNN that selects beam orientations in seconds and is therefore suitable for clinical routines. In the ...

Purpose: Many researchers have developed deep learning models for predicting clinical dose distributions and Pareto optimal dose distributions. Models for predicting Pareto optimal dose distributions have generated optimal plans in real time using anatomical structures and static beam orientations. However, Pareto optimal dose prediction for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) prostate planning with variable beam numbers and orientations has not yet been investigated. We propose to develop a deep learning model that can predict Pareto optimal dose distributions by using any given set of beam angles, along with patient anatomy, as input to train the deep neural networks. We implement and compare two deep learning networks that predict with two different beam configuration modalities. Methods: We generated Pareto optimal plans for 70 patients with prostate cancer. We used fluence map optimization to generate 500 IMRT plans that sampled the Pareto surface for each patient, for a total of 35 000 plans. We studied and compared two different models, Models I and II. Although they both used the same anatomical structuresincluding the planning target volume (PTV), organs at risk (OARs), and bodythese models were designed with two different methods for representing beam angles. Model I directly uses beam angles as a second input to the network as a binary vector. Model II converts the beam angles into beam doses that are conformal to the PTV. We divided the 70 patients into 54 training, 6 validation, and 10 testing patients, thus yielding 27 000 training, 3000 validation, and 5000 testing plans. Mean square loss (MSE) was taken as the loss function. We used the Adam optimizer with a default learning rate of 0.01 to optimize the network's performance. We evaluated the models' performance by comparing their predicted dose distributions with the ground truth (Pareto optimal) dose distribution, in terms of dose volume histogram (DVH) plots and evaluation metrics such as PTV D 98 , D 95 , D 50 , D 2 , D max , D mean , Paddick Conformation Number, R50, and Homogeneity index. Results: Our deep learning models predicted voxel-level dose distributions that precisely matched the ground truth dose distributions. The DVHs generated also precisely matched the ground truth. Evaluation metrics such as PTV statistics, dose conformity, dose spillage (R50), and homogeneity index also confirmed the accuracy of PTV curves on the DVH. Quantitatively, Model I's prediction error of 0.043 (confirmation), 0.043 (homogeneity), 0.327 (R50), 2.80% (D95), 3.90% (D98), 0.6% (D50), and 1.10% (D2) was lower than that of Model II, which obtained 0.076 (confirmation), 0.058 (homogeneity), 0.626 (R50), 7.10% (D95), 6.50% (D98), 8.40% (D50), and 6.30% (D2). Model I also outperformed Model II in terms of the mean dose error and the max dose error on the PTV, bladder, rectum, left femoral head, and right femoral head. Conclusions: Treatment planners who use our models will be able to use deep learning to control the trade-offs between the PTV and OAR...