Applying a RapidPlan model trained on a technique and orientation to another: a feasibility and dosimetric evaluation

Self Cite

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.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Wang

Huang

et al. 2018

Self Cite

Photon Optimizer (PO) prevails over Progressive Resolution Optimizer (PRO) for VMAT planning with or without knowledge‐based solution

Jiang

Yue

et al. 2017

Self Cite

The enhanced dosimetric performance of knowledge‐based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning might be jointly contributed by the patient‐specific optimization objectives, as estimated by the RapidPlan model, and by the potentially improved Photon Optimizer (PO) algorithm than the previous Progressive Resolution Optimizer (PRO) engine. As PO is mandatory for RapidPlan estimation but optional for conventional manual planning, appreciating the two optimizers may provide practical guidelines for the algorithm selection because knowledge‐based planning may not replace the current method completely in a short run. Using a previously validated dose–volume histogram (DVH) estimation model which can produce clinically acceptable plans automatically for rectal cancer patients without interactive manual adjustment, this study reoptimized 30 historically approved plans (referred as clinical plans that were created manually with PRO) with RapidPlan solution (PO plans). Then the PRO algorithm was utilized to optimize the plans again using the same dose–volume constraints as PO plans, where the line objectives were converted as a series of point objectives automatically (PRO plans). On the basis of comparable target dose coverage, the combined applications of new objectives and PO algorithm have significantly reduced the organs‐at‐risk (OAR) exposure by 23.49–32.72% than the clinical plans. These discrepancies have been largely preserved after substituting PRO for PO, indicating the dosimetric improvements were mostly attributable to the refined objectives. Therefore, Eclipse users of earlier versions may instantly benefit from adopting the model‐generated objectives from other RapidPlan‐equipped centers, even with PRO algorithm. However, the additional contribution made by the PO relative to PRO accounted for 1.54–3.74%, suggesting PO should be selected with priority whenever available, with or without RapidPlan solution as a purchasable package. Significantly increased monitor units were associated with the model‐generated objectives but independent from the optimizers, indicating higher modulation in these plans. As a summary, PO prevails over PRO algorithm for VMAT planning with or without knowledge‐based technique.

Fully automated searching for the optimal VMAT jaw settings based on Eclipse Scripting Application Programming Interface (ESAPI) and RapidPlan knowledge‐based planning

Huang

Yue

Wang

et al. 2018

Self Cite

PurposeEclipse treatment planning system has not been able to optimize the jaw positions for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT). The arbitrary and planner‐dependent jaw placements define the maximum field size within which multi‐leaf‐collimator (MLC) sequences can be optimized to modulate the beam. Considering the mechanical constraints of MLC transitional speed and range, suboptimal X jaw settings may impede the optimization or undermine the deliverability. This work searches optimal VMAT jaw settings automatically based on Eclipse Scripting Application Programming Interface (ESAPI) and RapidPlan knowledge‐based planning.Methods and materialsUsing an ESAPI script, the X jaws of rectal VMAT plans were initially set to conform the planning‐target‐volume (PTV), and were gradually extended toward the isocenter (PTV center) in 5–7 mm increments. Using these jaw pairs, 592 plans were automatically created for 10 patients and quantitatively evaluated using a comprehensive scoring function. A published RapidPlan model was evoked by ESAPI to generate patient‐specific optimization objectives without manual intervention. All candidate plans were first stored as text files to save storage space, and only the best, worst, and conformal plans were consequently recreated for comparison.ResultsAlthough RapidPlan estimates dose‐volume histogram (DVH) based on individual anatomy, the geometry‐based expected dose (GED) algorithm does not recognize different jaw settings but uses PTV‐conformal jaws as default; hence, identical DVHs were observed regardless of planner‐defined jaws. Therefore, ESAPI finalized dose‐volume calculation and eliminated the plans with unacceptable hotspots before comparison. The plan quality varied dramatically with different jaw settings. Trade‐offs among different organs‐at‐risk (OARs) were collectively considered by the proposed scoring method, which identified the best and worst plans correctly. The plans using conformal jaws were neither the best nor the worst of all candidates.Conclusions VMAT plans using optimal jaw locations can be created automatically using ESAPI and RapidPlan. Conformal jaws are not the optimal choice.