A Knowledge-Based Approach to Improving and Homogenizing Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Planning Quality Among Treatment Centers: An Example Application to Prostate Cancer Planning

RapidPlan, a commercial knowledge‐based optimizer, has been tested on head and neck, lung, esophageal, breast, liver, and prostate cancer patients. To appraise its performance on VMAT planning with simultaneous integrated boosting (SIB) for rectal cancer, this study configured a DVH (dose‐volume histogram) estimation model consisting 80 best‐effort manual cases of this type. Using the model‐ generated objectives, the MLC (multileaf collimator) sequences of other 70 clinically approved plans were reoptimized, while the remaining parameters, such as field geometry and photon energy, were maintained. Dosimetric outcomes were assessed by comparing homogeneity index (HI), conformal index (CI), hot spots (volumes receiving over 107% of the prescribed dose, normalV107%), mean dose and dose to the 50% volume of femoral head (normalDmean_FH and normalD50%_FH), and urinary bladder (normalDmean_UB and normalD50%_UB), and the mean DVH plotting. Paired samples t‐test or Wilcoxon signed‐rank test suggested that comparable CI were achieved by RapidPlan (0.99 ± 0.04 for PTVboost, and 1.03 ± 0.02 for PTV) and original plans (1.00 ± 0.05 for PTVboost and 1.03 ± 0.02 for PTV), respectively (p > 0.05). Slightly improved HI of planning target volume (PTVboost) and PTV were observed in the RapidPlan cases (0.05 ± 0.01 for PTVboost, and 0.26 ± 0.01 for PTV) than the original plans (0.06 ± 0.01 for PTVboost and 0.26 ± 0.01 for PTV), p < 0.05. More cases with positive V107% were found in the original (18 plans) than the RapidPlan group (none). RapidPlan significantly reduced the normalD50%_FH (by 1.53 Gy/9.86% from 15.52 ± 2.17 to 13.99 ± 1.16 Gy), normalDmean_FH (by 1.29 Gy/7.78% from 16.59±2.07 to 15.30±0.70 G), normalD50%_UB (by 4.93 Gy/17.50% from 28.17±3.07 to 23.24±2.13 Gy), and normalDmean_UB (by 3.94 Gy/13.43% from 29.34±2.34 to 25.40±1.36 Gy), respectively. The more concentrated distribution of RapidPlan data points indicated an enhanced consistency of plan quality.PACS number(s): 87.55.de; 87.55.dk

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A dosimetric evaluation of knowledge‐based VMAT planning with simultaneous integrated boosting for rectal cancer patients

Jiang

Yue

et al. 2016

“…Knowledge‐based radiotherapy treatment planning is deemed to reduce the inter‐planner varieties of plan quality1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and expedite the planning process 14, 15, 16, 1718, 19 and displayed good compatibility across patient orientations, treatment techniques, and systems 20, 21…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An interactive plan and model evolution method for knowledge‐based pelvic VMAT planning

Wang

Huang

et al. 2018

PurposeTo test if a RapidPlan DVH estimation model and its training plans can be improved interactively through a closed‐loop evolution process.Methods and materialsEighty‐one manual plans (P0) that were used to configure an initial rectal RapidPlan model (M0) were reoptimized using M0 (closed‐loop), yielding 81 P1 plans. The 75 improved P1 (P1+) and the remaining 6 P0 were used to configure model M1. The 81 training plans were reoptimized again using M1, producing 23 P2 plans that were superior to both their P0 and P1 forms (P2+). Hence, the knowledge base of model M2 composed of 6 P0, 52 P1+, and 23 P2+. Models were tested dosimetrically on 30 VMAT validation cases (Pv) that were not used for training, yielding Pv(M0), Pv(M1), and Pv(M2) respectively. The 30 Pv were also optimized by M2_new as trained by the library of M2 and 30 Pv(M0).ResultsBased on comparable target dose coverage, the first closed‐loop reoptimization significantly (P < 0.01) reduced the 81 training plans’ mean dose to femoral head, urinary bladder, and small bowel by 2.65 Gy/15.63%, 2.06 Gy/8.11%, and 1.47 Gy/6.31% respectively, which were further reduced significantly (P < 0.01) in the second closed‐loop reoptimization by 0.04 Gy/0.28%, 0.18 Gy/0.77%, 0.22 Gy/1.01% respectively. However, open‐loop VMAT validations displayed more complex and intertwined plan quality changes: mean dose to urinary bladder and small bowel decreased monotonically using M1 (by 0.34 Gy/1.47%, 0.25 Gy/1.13%) and M2 (by 0.36 Gy/1.56%, 0.30 Gy/1.36%) than using M0. However, mean dose to femoral head increased by 0.81 Gy/6.64% (M1) and 0.91 Gy/7.46% (M2) than using M0. The overfitting problem was relieved by applying model M2_new.ConclusionsThe RapidPlan model and its constituent plans can improve each other interactively through a closed‐loop evolution process. Incorporating new patients into the original training library can improve the RapidPlan model and the upcoming plans interactively.

“…proved that it is possible to quantify the complex relationship that different factors have on the final shape of the DVH 9. This group also used their tool to exchange models that summarize plan creation strategies among different institutions, hence providing a means to standardize treatment planning 13, 14. Moore et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Creation of knowledge‐based planning models intended for large scale distribution: Minimizing the effect of outlier plans

Aviles

Marcos²,

Sasaki

et al. 2018

Knowledge‐based planning (KBP) can be used to estimate dose–volume histograms (DVHs) of organs at risk (OAR) using models. The task of model creation, however, can result in estimates with differing accuracy; particularly when outlier plans are not properly addressed. This work used RapidPlan™ to create models for the prostate and head and neck intended for large‐scale distribution. Potential outlier plans were identified by means of regression analysis scatter plots, Cook's distance, coefficient of determination, and the chi‐squared test. Outlier plans were identified as falling into three categories: geometric, dosimetric, and over‐fitting outliers. The models were validated by comparing DVHs estimated by the model with those from a separate and independent set of clinical plans. The estimated DVHs were also used as optimization objectives during inverse planning. The analysis tools lead us to identify as many as 7 geometric, 8 dosimetric, and 20 over‐fitting outliers in the raw models. Geometric and over‐fitting outliers were removed while the dosimetric outliers were replaced after re‐planning. Model validation was done by comparing the DVHs at 50%, 85%, and 99% of the maximum dose for each OAR (denoted as V50, V85, and V99) and agreed within −2% to 4% for the three metrics for the final prostate model. In terms of the head and neck model, the estimated DVHs agreed from −2.0% to 5.1% at V50, 0.1% to 7.1% at V85, and 0.1% to 7.6% at V99. The process used to create these models improved the accuracy for the pharyngeal constrictor DVH estimation where one plan was originally over‐estimated by more than twice. In conclusion, our results demonstrate that KBP models should be carefully created since their accuracy could be negatively affected by outlier plans. Outlier plans can be addressed by removing them from the model and re‐planning.