Clinical Acceptability of Automated Radiation Treatment Planning for Head and Neck Cancer Using the Radiation Planning Assistant

Self Cite

This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of using a knowledge-based planning technique to detect poor quality VMAT plans for patients with head and neck cancer. We created two dose-volume histogram (DVH) prediction models using a commercial knowledge-based planning system (RapidPlan, Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) from plans generated by manual planning (MP) and automated planning (AP) approaches. DVHs were predicted for evaluation cohort 1 (EC1) of 25 patients and compared with achieved DVHs of MP and AP plans to evaluate prediction accuracy. Additionally, we predicted DVHs for evaluation cohort 2 (EC2) of 25 patients for which we intentionally generated plans with suboptimal normal tissue sparing while satisfying dose-volume limits of standard practice. Three radiation oncologists reviewed these plans without seeing the DVH predictions. We found that predicted DVH ranges (upperlower predictions) were consistently wider for the MP model than for the AP model for all normal structures. The average ranges of mean dose predictions among all structures was 9.7 Gy (MP model) and 3.4 Gy (AP model) for EC1 patients. RapidPlan models identified 7 MP plans as outliers according to mean dose or D1% for at least one structure, while none of AP plans were flagged. For EC2 patients, 22 suboptimal plans were identified by prediction. While regenerated AP plans validated that these suboptimal plans could be improved, 40 out of 45 structures with predicted poor sparing were also identified by oncologist reviews as requiring additional planning to improve sparing in the clinical setting. Our study shows that knowledge-based DVH prediction models can be sufficiently accurate for plan quality assurance purposes. A prediction model built by a small cohort automatically-generated plans was effective in detecting suboptimal plans. Such tools have potential to assist the plan quality assurance workflow for individual patients in the clinic.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Details of the auto planning approach utilized to generate AP plans in this study can be found in our previous work. 31 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Knowledge‐based planning for the radiation therapy treatment plan quality assurance for patients with head and neck cancer

Cao

Gronberg

Olanrewaju

et al. 2022

Self Cite

Development and validation of a checklist for use with automatically generated radiotherapy plans

Nealon

Court

Douglas

et al. 2022

Self Cite

To develop a checklist that improves the rate of error detection during the plan review of automatically generated radiotherapy plans. Methods: A custom checklist was developed using guidance from American Association of Physicists in Medicine task groups 275 and 315 and the results of a failure modes and effects analysis of the Radiation Planning Assistant (RPA), an automated contouring and treatment planning tool. The preliminary checklist contained 90 review items for each automatically generated plan. In the first study, eight physicists were recruited from our institution who were familiar with the RPA. Each physicist reviewed 10 artificial intelligencegenerated resident treatment plans from the RPA for safety and plan quality, five of which contained errors. Physicists performed plan checks, recorded errors, and rated each plan's clinical acceptability. Following a 2-week break, physicists reviewed 10 additional plans with a similar distribution of errors using our customized checklist. Participants then provided feedback on the usability of the checklist and it was modified accordingly. In a second study, this process was repeated with 14 senior medical physics residents who were randomly assigned to checklist or no checklist for their reviews. Each reviewed 10 plans, five of which contained errors, and completed the corresponding survey.Results: In the first study, the checklist significantly improved the rate of error detection from 3.4 ± 1.1 to 4.4 ± 0.74 errors per participant without and with the checklist, respectively (p = 0.02). Error detection increased by 20% when the custom checklist was utilized. In the second study, 2.9 ± 0.84 and 3.5 ± 0.84 errors per participant were detected without and with the revised checklist, respectively (p = 0.08). Despite the lack of statistical significance for this cohort, error detection increased by 18% when the checklist was utilized. Conclusion:Our results indicate that the use of a customized checklist when reviewing automated treatment plans will result in improved patient safety.

Assessing the practicality of using a single knowledge‐based planning model for multiple linac vendors

Douglas

Olanrewaju

Zhang

et al. 2022

Self Cite

Knowledge-based planning (KBP) has been shown to be an effective tool in quality control for intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment planning and generating high-quality plans. Previous studies have evaluated its ability to create consistent plans across institutions and between planners within the same institution as well as its use as teaching tool for inexperienced planners. This study evaluates whether planning quality is consistent when using a KBP model to plan across different treatment machines. Materials and methods:This study used a RapidPlan model (Varian Medical Systems) provided by the vendor, to which we added additional planning objectives, maximum dose limits, and planning structures, such that a clinically acceptable plan is achieved in a single optimization. This model was used to generate and optimize volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans for a cohort of 50 patients treated for head-neck cancer. Plans were generated using the following treatment machines: Varian 2100, Elekta Versa HD, and Varian Halcyon. A noninferiority testing methodology was used to evaluate the hypothesis that normal and target metrics in our autoplans were no worse than a set of clinically-acceptable baseline plans by a margin of 1.8 Gy or 3% dose-volume. The quality of these plans were also compared through the use of common clinical dose-volume histogram criteria. Results: The Versa HD met our noninferiority criteria for 23 of 34 normal and target metrics; while the Halcyon and Varian 2100 machines met our criteria for 24 of 34 and 26 of 34 metrics, respectively. The experimental plans tended to have less volume coverage for prescription dose planning target volume and larger hotspot volumes. However, comparable plans were generated across different treatment machines. Conclusions: These results support the use of a head-neck RapidPlan models in centralized planning workflows that support clinics with different linac models/vendors, although some fine-tuning for targets may be necessary.