Experience-Based Quality Control of Clinical Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Planning

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: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Wang

Huang

et al. 2018

“…A database of previously accepted plans for a specific disease site is built. A new plan is supposed to achieve quality comparable to the previous cases with similar patient anatomy and objectives 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 . Another approach to partially automating the dose optimization process is implemented in the AutoPlanning (AP) software module, an option with Pinnacle v. 9.10 TPS (Philips Medical Systems, Fitchburg, WI).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Initial evaluation of automated treatment planning software

Gintz

Latifi

Caudell

et al. 2016

Even with advanced inverse‐planning techniques, radiation treatment plan optimization remains a very time‐consuming task with great output variability, which prompted the development of more automated approaches. One commercially available technique mimics the actions of experienced human operators to progressively guide the traditional optimization process with automatically created regions of interest and associated dose‐volume objectives. We report on the initial evaluation of this algorithm on 10 challenging cases of locoreginally advanced head and neck cancer. All patients were treated with VMAT to 70 Gy to the gross disease and 56 Gy to the elective bilateral nodes. The results of post‐treatment autoplanning (AP) were compared to the original human‐driven plans (HDP). We used an objective scoring system based on defining a collection of specific dosimetric metrics and corresponding numeric score functions for each. Five AP techniques with different input dose goals were applied to all patients. The best of them averaged the composite score 8% lower than the HDP, across the patient population. The difference in median values was statistically significant at the 95% confidence level (Wilcoxon paired signed‐rank test p=0.027). This result reflects the premium the institution places on dose homogeneity, which was consistently higher with the HDPs. The OAR sparing was consistently better with the APs, the differences reaching statistical significance for the mean doses to the parotid glands (p<0.001) and the inferior pharyngeal constrictor (p=0.016), as well as for the maximum doses to the spinal cord (p=0.018) and brainstem (p=0.040). If one is prepared to accept less stringent dose homogeneity criteria from the RTOG 1016 protocol, nine APs would comply with the protocol, while providing lower OAR doses than the HDPs. Overall, AP is a promising clinical tool, but it could benefit from a better process for shifting the balance between the target dose coverage/homogeneity and OAR sparing.PACS number(s): 87.55.D

“…Quality control of the planned dose of radiation absorbed by OAR during radiotherapy is critically important 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29. In the present study, OAR for cervical carcinoma and NPC were divided into sOAR and a multiple linear regression analyses were used to fit the experimental data for sOAR volumes and gEUD ( a = 1).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A quality control method for intensity‐modulated radiation therapy planning based on generalized equivalent uniform dose

Pang

Sun

Yang

et al. 2018

To ensure good quality intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning, we proposed the use of a quality control method based on generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) that predicts absorbed radiation doses in organs at risk (OAR). We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent IMRT for the treatment of cervical carcinoma, nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), or non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). IMRT plans were randomly divided into data acquisition and data verification groups. OAR in the data acquisition group for cervical carcinoma and NPC were further classified as sub‐organs at risk (sOAR). The normalized volume of sOAR and normalized gEUD (a = 1) were analyzed using multiple linear regression to establish a fitting formula. For NSCLC, the normalized intersection volume of the planning target volume (PTV) and lung, the maximum diameter of the PTV (left–right, anterior–posterior, and superior–inferior), and the normalized gEUD (a = 1) were analyzed using multiple linear regression to establish a fitting formula for the lung gEUD (a = 1). The r‐squared and P values indicated that the fitting formula was a good fit. In the data verification group, IMRT plans verified the accuracy of the fitting formula, and compared the gEUD (a = 1) for each OAR between the subjective method and the gEUD‐based method. In conclusion, the gEUD‐based method can be used effectively for quality control and can reduce the influence of subjective factors on IMRT planning optimization.