A multiplan treatment-planning framework: a paradigm shift for intensity-modulated radiotherapy

Multiobjective, Multidelivery Optimization for Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning

Purpose

To introduce multiobjective, multidelivery optimization (MODO), which generates alternative patient-specific plans emphasizing dosimetric trade-offs and conformance to quasi-constrained (QC) conditions for multiple delivery techniques.

Methods and Materials

For M delivery techniques and N organs at risk (OARs), MODO generates M (N + 1) alternative treatment plans per patient. For 30 locally advanced lung cancer cases, the algorithm was investigated based on dosimetric trade-offs to 4 OARs: each lung, heart, and esophagus (N = 4) and 4 delivery techniques (4-field coplanar intensity modulated radiation therapy [IMRT], 9-field coplanar IMRT, 27-field noncoplanar IMRT, and noncoplanar arc IMRT) and conformance to QC conditions, including dose to 95% (D95) of the planning target volume (PTV), maximum dose (Dmax) to PTV (PTV-Dmax), and spinal cord Dmax. The MODO plan set was evaluated for conformance to QC conditions while simultaneously revealing dosimetric trade-offs. Statistically significant dosimetric trade-offs were defined such that the coefficient of determination was >0.8 with dosimetric indices that varied by at least 5 Gy.

Results

Plans varied mean dose by >5 Gy to ipsilateral lung for 24 of 30 patients, contralateral lung for 29 of 30 patients, esophagus for 29 of 30 patients, and heart for 19 of 30 patients. In the 600 plans, average PTV-D95 = 67.6 ± 2.1 Gy, PTV-Dmax = 79.8 ± 5.2 Gy, and spinal cord Dmax among all plans was 51.4 Gy. Statistically significant dosimetric trade-offs reducing OAR mean dose by >5 Gy were evident in 19 of 30 patients, including multiple OAR trade-offs of at least 5 Gy in 7 of 30 cases. The most common statistically significant trade-off was increasing PTV-Dmax to reduce dose to OARs (15 of 30). The average 4-field plan reduced total lung V20 by 10.4% ± 8.3% compared with 9-field plans, 7.7% ± 7.9% compared with 27-field noncoplanar plans, and 11.7% ± 10.3% compared with 2-arc noncoplanar plans, with corresponding increases in PTV-Dmax of 5.3 ± 5.9 Gy, 4.6 ± 5.6 Gy, and 9.3 ± 7.3 Gy.

Conclusions

The proposed optimization method produces clinically relevant treatment plans that meet QC conditions and demonstrate variations in OAR doses.

A dose-volume histogram based decision-support system for dosimetric comparison of radiotherapy treatment plans

Background

The choice of any radiotherapy treatment plan is usually made after the evaluation of a few preliminary isodose distributions obtained from different beam configurations. Despite considerable advances in planning techniques, such final decision remains a challenging task that would greatly benefit from efficient and reliable assessment tools.

Methods

For any dosimetric plan considered, data on dose-volume histograms supplied by treatment planning systems are used to provide estimates on planning target coverage as well as on sparing of organs at risk and the remaining healthy tissue. These partial metrics are then combined into a dose distribution index (DDI), which provides a unified, easy-to-read score for each competing radiotherapy plan. To assess the performance of the proposed scoring system, DDI figures for fifty brain cancer patients were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were divided in three groups depending on tumor location and malignancy. For each patient, three tentative plans were designed and recorded during planning, one of which was eventually selected for treatment. We thus were able to compare the plans with better DDI scores and those actually delivered.

Results

When planning target coverage and organs at risk sparing are considered as equally important, the tentative plan with the highest DDI score is shown to coincide with that actually delivered in 32 of the 50 patients considered. In 15 (respectively 3) of the remaining 18 cases, the plan with highest DDI value still coincides with that actually selected, provided that organs at risk sparing is given higher priority (respectively, lower priority) than target coverage.

Conclusions

DDI provides a straightforward and non-subjective tool for dosimetric comparison of tentative radiotherapy plans. In particular, DDI readily quantifies differences among competing plans with similar-looking dose-volume histograms and can be easily implemented for any tumor type and localization, irrespective of the planning system and irradiation technique considered. Moreover, DDI permits to estimate the dosimetry impact of different priorities being assigned to sparing of organs at risk or to better target coverage.

Selecting radiotherapy dose distributions by means of constrained optimization problems

The main steps in planning radiotherapy consist in selecting for any patient diagnosed with a solid tumor (i) a prescribed radiation dose on the tumor, (ii) bounds on the radiation side effects on nearby organs at risk and (iii) a fractionation scheme specifying the number and frequency of therapeutic sessions during treatment. The goal of any radiotherapy treatment is to deliver on the tumor a radiation dose as close as possible to that selected in (i), while at the same time conforming to the constraints prescribed in (ii). To this day, considerable uncertainties remain concerning the best manner in which such issues should be addressed. In particular, the choice of a prescription radiation dose is mostly based on clinical experience accumulated on the particular type of tumor considered, without any direct reference to quantitative radiobiological assessment. Interestingly, mathematical models for the effect of radiation on biological matter have existed for quite some time, and are widely acknowledged by clinicians. However, the difficulty to obtain accurate in vivo measurements of the radiobiological parameters involved has severely restricted their direct application in current clinical practice.In this work, we first propose a mathematical model to select radiation dose distributions as solutions (minimizers) of suitable variational problems, under the assumption that key radiobiological parameters for tumors and organs at risk involved are known. Second, by analyzing the dependence of such solutions on the parameters involved, we then discuss the manner in which the use of those minimizers can improve current decision-making processes to select clinical dosimetries when (as is generally the case) only partial information on model radiosensitivity parameters is available. A comparison of the proposed radiation dose distributions with those actually delivered in a number of clinical cases strongly suggests that solutions of our mathematical model can be instrumental in deriving good quality tests to select radiotherapy treatment plans in rather general situations.

Quantitative metrics for assessing plan quality

Despite many studies over the last 3 decades that have attempted to explicitly quantify the decision-making process for radiotherapy treatment plan evaluation, judgments of an individual plan's degree of quality are still largely subjective and can show inter- and intra-practitioner variability even if the clinical treatment goals are the same. Several factors conspire to confound the full quantification of treatment plan quality, including uncertainties in dose response of cancerous and normal tissue, the rapid pace of new technology adoption, and the human component of treatment planning. However, new developments in clinical informatics and automation are lowering the bar for developing and implementing quantitative metrics into the treatment planning process. This review discusses general strategies for using quantitative metrics in the treatment planning process and presents a case study in intensity-modulated radiation therapy planning whereby control was established on a variable system via such techniques.

The minimum knowledge base for predicting organ-at-risk dose-volume levels and plan-related complications in IMRT planning

IMRT treatment planning requires consideration of two competing objectives: achieving the required amount of radiation for the planning target volume and minimizing the amount of radiation delivered to all other tissues. It is important for planners to understand the tradeoff between competing factors so that the time-consuming human interaction loop (plan-evaluate-modify) can be eliminated. Treatment-plan-surface models have been proposed as a decision support tool to aid treatment planners and clinicians in choosing between rival treatment plans in a multi-plan environment. In this paper, an empirical approach is introduced to determine the minimum number of treatment plans (minimum knowledge base) required to build accurate representations of the IMRT plan surface in order to predict organ-at-risk (OAR) dose-volume (DV) levels and complications as a function of input DV constraint settings corresponding to all involved OARs in the plan. We have tested our approach on five head and neck patients and five whole pelvis/prostate patients. Our results suggest that approximately 30 plans were sufficient to predict DV levels with less than 3% relative error in both head and neck and whole pelvis/prostate cases. In addition, approximately 30-60 plans were sufficient to predict saliva flow rate with less than 2% relative error and to classify rectal bleeding with an accuracy of 90%.

Modeling plan-related clinical complications using machine learning tools in a multiplan IMRT framework

PURPOSE

To predict organ-at-risk (OAR) complications as a function of dose-volume (DV) constraint settings without explicit plan computation in a multiplan intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) framework.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Several plans were generated by varying the DV constraints (input features) on the OARs (multiplan framework), and the DV levels achieved by the OARs in the plans (plan properties) were modeled as a function of the imposed DV constraint settings. OAR complications were then predicted for each of the plans by using the imposed DV constraints alone (features) or in combination with modeled DV levels (plan properties) as input to machine learning (ML) algorithms. These ML approaches were used to model two OAR complications after head-and-neck and prostate IMRT: xerostomia, and Grade 2 rectal bleeding. Two-fold cross-validation was used for model verification and mean errors are reported.

RESULTS

Errors for modeling the achieved DV values as a function of constraint settings were 0-6%. In the head-and-neck case, the mean absolute prediction error of the saliva flow rate normalized to the pretreatment saliva flow rate was 0.42% with a 95% confidence interval of (0.41-0.43%). In the prostate case, an average prediction accuracy of 97.04% with a 95% confidence interval of (96.67-97.41%) was achieved for Grade 2 rectal bleeding complications.

CONCLUSIONS

ML can be used for predicting OAR complications during treatment planning allowing for alternative DV constraint settings to be assessed within the planning framework.

A decision aid for intensity-modulated radiation-therapy plan selection in prostate cancer based on a prognostic Bayesian network and a Markov model

OBJECTIVE

The prognosis of cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation-therapy (IMRT) is inherently uncertain, depends on many decision variables, and requires that a physician balance competing objectives: maximum tumor control with minimal treatment complications.

METHODS

In order to better deal with the complex and multiple objective nature of the problem we have combined a prognostic probabilistic model with multi-attribute decision theory which incorporates patient preferences for outcomes.

RESULTS

The response to IMRT for prostate cancer was modeled. A Bayesian network was used for prognosis for each treatment plan. Prognoses included predicting local tumor control, regional spread, distant metastases, and normal tissue complications resulting from treatment. A Markov model was constructed and used to calculate a quality-adjusted life-expectancy which aids in the multi-attribute decision process.

CONCLUSIONS

Our method makes explicit the tradeoffs patients face between quality and quantity of life. This approach has advantages over current approaches because with our approach risks of health outcomes and patient preferences determine treatment decisions.