Using a knowledge-based planning solution to select patients for proton therapy

Proton radiation therapy patient selection and impacts of COVID-19: A scoping review

This scoping review aimed to determine whether the COVID-19 pandemic influenced any modifications to patient selection methods or prioritisation and services provided by proton therapy (PT) centres. This review was conducted based on the PRISMA methodology and Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review guidelines. A literature search was performed in Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus, as well as grey literature. Keywords such as "COVID-19" and "Proton Therapy" were used. Articles published from 1 January 2020 in English were included. In total, 138 studies were identified of which 11 articles met the inclusion criteria. A scoping review design was chosen to capture the full extent of information published relating to the aim. Six of 11 articles included statements regarding treatment of COVID-19 patients. Three publications recommended deferred or alternative treatment, two indicated to treat urgent/emergency patients and one reported continuous treatment for infectious patients. Recurring impacts on PT provision included more frequent use of unconventional therapies, reduced referrals, delayed treatment starts and CT simulation, change in treatment target volumes and staffing limitations due to pandemic restrictions. Consequently, telehealth consults, remote work, reduction in patient visitors, screening procedures and rigorous cleaning protocols were recommended. Few publications detailed changes to patient selection or workflow methods during the pandemic. Further research is needed to obtain more detailed information regarding current global patient selection methods in PT, collecting this data could aid in future planning for PT in Australia.

Dose distribution prediction for head-and-neck cancer radiotherapy using a generative adversarial network: influence of input data

Purpose

A three-dimensional deep generative adversarial network (GAN) was used to predict dose distributions for locally advanced head and neck cancer radiotherapy. Given the labor- and time-intensive nature of manual planning target volume (PTV) and organ-at-risk (OAR) segmentation, we investigated whether dose distributions could be predicted without the need for fully segmented datasets.

Materials and methods

GANs were trained/validated/tested using 320/30/35 previously segmented CT datasets and treatment plans. The following input combinations were used to train and test the models: CT-scan only (C); CT+PTVboost/elective (CP); CT+PTVs+OARs+body structure (CPOB); PTVs+OARs+body structure (POB); PTVs+body structure (PB). Mean absolute errors (MAEs) for the predicted dose distribution and mean doses to individual OARs (individual salivary glands, individual swallowing structures) were analyzed.

Results

For the five models listed, MAEs were 7.3 Gy, 3.5 Gy, 3.4 Gy, 3.4 Gy, and 3.5 Gy, respectively, without significant differences among CP-CPOB, CP-POB, CP-PB, among CPOB-POB. Dose volume histograms showed that all four models that included PTV contours predicted dose distributions that had a high level of agreement with clinical treatment plans. The best model CPOB and the worst model PB (except model C) predicted mean dose to within ±3 Gy of the clinical dose, for 82.6%/88.6%/82.9% and 71.4%/67.1%/72.2% of all OARs, parotid glands (PG), and submandibular glands (SMG), respectively. The R2 values (0.17/0.96/0.97/0.95/0.95) of OAR mean doses for each model also indicated that except for model C, the predictions correlated highly with the clinical dose distributions. Interestingly model C could reasonably predict the dose in eight patients, but on average, it performed inadequately.

Conclusion

We demonstrated the influence of the CT scan, and PTV and OAR contours on dose prediction. Model CP was not statistically different from model CPOB and represents the minimum data statistically required to adequately predict the clinical dose distribution in a group of patients.

Automation of pencil beam scanning proton treatment planning for intracranial tumours

PURPOSE

To evaluate the feasibility of comprehensive automation of an intra-cranial proton treatment planning.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Class solution (CS) beam configuration selection allows the user to identify predefined beam configuration based on target localization; automatic CS (aCS) will then explore all the possible CS beam geometries. Ten patients, already used for the evaluation of the automatic selection of the beam configuration, have been also employed to training an algorithm based on the computation of a benchmark dose exploit automatic general planning solution (GPS) optimization with a wish list approach for the planning optimization. An independent cohort of ten patients has been then used for the evaluation step between the clinical and the GPS plan in terms of dosimetric quality of plans and the time needed to generate a plan.

RESULTS

The definition of a beam configuration requires on average 22 min (range 9-29 min). The average time for GPS plan generation is 18 min (range 7-26 min). Median dose differences (GPS-Manual) for each OAR constraints are: brainstem -1.60 Gy, left cochlea -1.22 Gy, right cochlea -1.42 Gy, left eye 0.55 Gy, right eye -2.33 Gy, optic chiasm -1.87 Gy, left optic nerve -4.45 Gy, right optic nerve -2.48 Gy and optic tract -0.31 Gy. Dosimetric CS and aCS plan evaluation shows a slightly worsening of the OARs values except for the optic tract and optic chiasm for both CS and aCS, where better results have been observed.

CONCLUSION

This study has shown the feasibility and implementation of the automatic planning system for intracranial tumors. The method developed in this work is ready to be implemented in a clinical workflow.

Three-dimensional dose and LETD prediction in proton therapy using artificial neural networks

PURPOSE

Challenges in proton therapy include identifying patients most likely to benefit; ensuring consistent, high-quality plans as its adoption becomes more widespread; and recognizing biological uncertainties that may be related to increased relative biologic effectiveness driven by linear energy transfer (LET). Knowledge-based planning (KBP) is a domain that may help to address all three.

METHODS

Artificial neural networks were trained using 117 unique treatment plans and associated dose and dose-weighted LET (LETD ) distributions. The data set was split into training (n = 82), validation (n = 17), and test (n = 18) sets. Model performance was evaluated on the test set using dose- and LETD -volume metrics in the clinical target volume (CTV) and nearby organs at risk and Dice similarity coefficients (DSC) comparing predicted and planned isodose lines at 50%, 75%, and 95% of the prescription dose.

RESULTS

Dose-volume metrics significantly differed (α = 0.05) between predicted and planned dose distributions in only one dose-volume metric, D2% to the CTV. The maximum observed root mean square (RMS) difference between corresponding metrics was 4.3 GyRBE (8% of prescription) for D1cc to optic chiasm. DSC were 0.90, 0.93, and 0.88 for the 50%, 75%, and 95% isodose lines, respectively. LETD -volume metrics significantly differed in all but one metric, L0.1cc of the brainstem. The maximum observed difference in RMS differences for LETD metrics was 1.0 keV/μm for L0.1cc to brainstem.

CONCLUSIONS

We have devised the first three-dimensional dose and LETD -prediction model for cranial proton radiation therapy has been developed. Dose accuracy compared favorably with that of previously published models in other treatment sites. The agreement in LETD supports future investigations with biological doses in mind to enable the full potential of KBP in proton therapy.

Training and validation of a knowledge-based dose-volume histogram predictive model in the optimisation of intensity-modulated proton and volumetric modulated arc photon plans for pleural mesothelioma patients

BACKGROUND

To investigate the performance of a narrow-scope knowledge-based RapidPlan (RP) model for optimisation of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans applied to patients with pleural mesothelioma. Second, estimate the potential benefit of IMPT versus VMAT for this class of patients.

METHODS

A cohort of 82 patients was retrospectively selected; 60 were used to "train" a dose-volume histogram predictive model; the remaining 22 provided independent validation. The performance of the RP models was benchmarked, comparing predicted versus achieved mean and near-to-maximum dose for all organs at risk (OARs) in the training set and by quantitative assessment of some dose-volume metrics in the comparison of the validation RP-based data versus the manually optimised training datasets. Treatment plans were designed for a prescription dose of 44 Gy in 22 fractions (proton doses account for a fixed relative biological effectiveness RBE = 1.1).

RESULTS

Training and validation RP-based plans resulted dosimetrically similar for both VMAT and IMPT groups, and the clinical planning aims were met for all structures. The IMPT plans outperformed the VMAT ones for all OARs for the contra-lateral and the mean and low dose regions for the ipsilateral OARs. Concerning the prediction performance of the RP models, the linear regression for the near-to-maximum dose resulted in Dachieved = 1.03Dpredicted + 0.58 and Dachieved = 1.02Dpredicted + 1.46 for VMAT and IMPT, respectively. For the mean dose it resulted: Dachieved = 0.99Dpredicted + 0.34 and Dachieved = 1.05Dpredicted + 0.27 respectively. In both cases, the linear correlation between prediction and achievement is granted with an angular coefficient deviating from unity for less than 5%. Concerning the dosimetric comparison between manual plans in the training cohort and RP-based plans in the validation cohort, no clinical differences were observed for the target volumes in both the VMAT and IMPT groups. Similar consistency was observed for the dose-volume metrics analysed for the OAR. This proves the possibility of achieving the same quality of plans with manual procedures (the training set) or with automated RP-based methods (the validation set).

CONCLUSION

Two models were trained and validated for VMAT and IMPT plans for pleural mesothelioma. The RP model performance resulted satisfactory as measured by the agreement between predicted and achieved (after full optimisation) dose-volume metrics. The IMPT plans outperformed the VMAT plans for all the OARs (with different intensities for contra- or ipsilateral structures). RP-based planning enabled the automation of part of the optimisation and the harmonisation of the dose-volume results between training and validation. The IMPT data showed a systematic significant dosimetric advantage over VMAT. In general, using an RP-based approach can simplify the optimisation workflow in these complex treatment indications without impacting the quality of plans.

A scoping review of patient selection methods for proton therapy

The aim was to explore various national and international clinical decision-making tools and dose comparison methods used for selecting cancer patients for proton versus X-ray radiation therapy. To address this aim, a literature search using defined scoping review methods was performed in Medline and Embase databases as well as grey literature. Articles published between 1 January 2015 and 4 August 2020 and those that clearly stated methods of proton versus X-ray therapy patient selection and those published in English were eligible for inclusion. In total, 321 studies were identified of which 49 articles met the study's inclusion criteria representing 13 countries. Six different clinical decision-making tools and 14 dose comparison methods were identified, demonstrating variability within countries and internationally. Proton therapy was indicated for all paediatric patients except those with lymphoma and re-irradiation where individualised model-based selection was required. The most commonly reported patient selection tools included the Normal Tissue Complication Probability model, followed by cost-effectiveness modelling and dosimetry comparison. Model-based selection methods were most commonly applied for head and neck clinical indications in adult cohorts (48% of studies). While no 'Gold Standard' currently exists for proton therapy patient selection with variations evidenced globally, some of the patient selection methods identified in this review can be used to inform future practice in Australia. As literature was not identified from all countries where proton therapy centres are available, further research is needed to evaluate patient selection methods in these jurisdictions for a comprehensive overview.

A Decision Support Tool to Optimize Selection of Head and Neck Cancer Patients for Proton Therapy

Simple Summary

A decision support tool was developed to select head and neck cancer patients for proton therapy. The tool uses delineation data to predict expected toxicity risk reduction with proton therapy and can be used before a treatment plan is created. The positive predictive value of the tool is >90%. This tool significantly reduces delays in commencing treatment and avoid redundant photon vs. proton treatment plan comparison.

Abstract

Selection of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients for proton therapy (PT) using plan comparison (VMAT vs. IMPT) for each patient is labor-intensive. Our aim was to develop a decision support tool to identify patients with high probability to qualify for PT, at a very early stage (immediately after delineation) to avoid delay in treatment initiation. A total of 151 HNC patients were included, of which 106 (70%) patients qualified for PT. Linear regression models for individual OARs were created to predict the D_mean to the OARs for VMAT and IMPT plans. The predictors were OAR volume percentages overlapping with target volumes. Then, actual and predicted plan comparison decisions were compared. Actual and predicted OAR D_mean (VMAT R² = 0.953, IMPT R² = 0.975) and NTCP values (VMAT R² = 0.986, IMPT R² = 0.992) were highly correlated. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of the decision support tool were 64%, 87%, 92% and 51%, respectively. The expected toxicity reduction with IMPT can be predicted using only the delineation data. The probability of qualifying for PT is >90% when the tool indicates a positive outcome for PT. This tool will contribute significantly to a more effective selection of HNC patients for PT at a much earlier stage, reducing treatment delay.

Fast, automated knowledge-based treatment planning for selecting patients for proton therapy based on normal tissue complication probabilities

Purpose

Selecting patients who will benefit from proton therapy is laborious and subjective. We demonstrate a novel automated solution for creating high-quality knowledge-based plans (KBPs) using proton and photon beams to identify patients for proton treatment based on their normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP).

Methods and Materials

Two previously validated RapidPlan PT models for locally advanced head and neck cancer were used in combination with scripting to automatically create proton and photon KBPs for 72 patients with recent oropharynx cancer. NTCPs were calculated for each patient based on the KBPs, and patient selection was simulated according to the current Dutch national protocol.

Results

The photon/proton KBP exhibited good correlation between predicted and achieved organ-at-risk mean doses, with a ≤5 Gy difference in 208/196 out of 215 structures relevant for the head and neck cancer NTCP model. The proton KBPs yielded on average 7.1/6.1/7.6 Gy lower dose to salivary/swallowing structures/oral cavity than the photon KBPs. This reduced average grade 2/3 dysphagia and xerostomia by 7.1/3.3 and 5.5/2.0 percentage points, resulting in 16 of 72 patients (22%) being indicated for proton treatment. The entire automated process took <30 minutes per patient.

Conclusions

Automated support for decision making using KBP is feasible and fast. The planning solution has potential to speed up the planning and patient-selection process significantly without major compromises to the plan quality.

Artificial intelligence applications in intensity modulated radiation treatment planning: an overview

Artificial intelligence (AI) refers to methods that improve and automate challenging human tasks by systematically capturing and applying relevant knowledge in these tasks. Over the past decades, a number of approaches have been developed to address different types and needs of system intelligence ranging from search strategies to knowledge representation and inference to robotic planning. In the context of radiation treatment planning, multiple AI approaches may be adopted to improve the planning quality and efficiency. For example, knowledge representation and inference methods may improve dose prescription by integrating and reasoning about the domain knowledge described in many clinical guidelines and clinical trials reports. In this review, we will focus on the most studied AI approach in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)/volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT)-machine learning (ML) and describe our recent efforts in applying ML to improve the quality, consistency, and efficiency of IMRT/VMAT planning. With the available high-quality data, we can build models to accurately predict critical variables for each step of the planning process and thus automate and improve its outcomes. Specific to the IMRT/VMAT planning process, we can build models for each of the four critical components in the process: dose-volume histogram (DVH), Dose, Fluence, and Human Planner. These models can be divided into two general groups. The first group focuses on encoding prior experience and knowledge through ML and more recently deep learning (DL) from prior clinical plans and using these models to predict the optimal DVH (DVH prediction model), or 3D dose distribution (dose prediction model), or fluence map (fluence map model). The goal of these models is to reduce or remove the trial-and-error process and guarantee consistently high-quality plans. The second group of models focuses on mimicking human planners' decision-making process (planning strategy model) during the iterative adjustments/guidance of the optimization engine. Each critical step of the IMRT/VMAT treatment planning process can be improved and automated by AI methods. As more training data becomes available and more sophisticated models are developed, we can expect that the AI methods in treatment planning will continue to improve accuracy, efficiency, and robustness.

Assessment of Knowledge-Based Planning for Prostate Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy

Purpose

To assess the performance of a proton-specific knowledge based planning (KBPP) model in creation of robustly optimized intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans for treatment of patients with prostate cancer.

Materials and Methods

Forty-five patients with localized prostate cancer, who had previously been treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy, were selected and replanned with robustly optimized IMPT. A KBPP model was generated from the results of 30 of the patients, and the remaining 15 patient results were used for validation. The KBPP model quality and accuracy were evaluated with the model-provided organ-at-risk regression plots and metrics. The KBPP quality was also assessed through comparison of expert and KBPP-generated IMPT plans for target coverage and organ-at-risk sparing.

Results

The resulting R ² (mean ± SD, 0.87 ± 0.07) between dosimetric and geometric features, as well as the χ² test (1.17 ± 0.07) between the original and estimated data, showed the model had good quality. All the KBPP plans were clinically acceptable. Compared with the expert plans, the KBPP plans had marginally higher dose-volume indices for the rectum V65Gy (0.8% ± 2.94%), but delivered a lower dose to the bladder (-1.06% ± 2.9% for bladder V65Gy). In addition, KBPP plans achieved lower hotspot (-0.67Gy ± 2.17Gy) and lower integral dose (-0.09Gy ± 0.3Gy) than the expert plans did. Moreover, the KBPP generated better plans that demonstrated slightly greater clinical target volume V95 (0.1% ± 0.68%) and lower homogeneity index (-1.13 ± 2.34).

Conclusions

The results demonstrated that robustly optimized IMPT plans created by the KBPP model are of high quality and are comparable to expert plans. Furthermore, the KBPP model can generate more-robust and more-homogenous plans compared with those of expert plans. More studies need to be done for the validation of the proton KBPP model at more-complicated treatment sites.

Can reducing planning safety margins broaden the inclusion criteria for lung stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy?

INTRODUCTION

Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is currently indicated for inoperable, early-stage non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). Advancements in image-guidance technology continue to improve treatment precision and enable reductions in planning safety margins. We investigated the dosimetric benefits of margin reduction, its potential to extend SABR to more NSCLC patients and the factors influencing plan acceptability.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis included 61 patients (stage IA-IIIA) treated with conventional radiotherapy. Patients were ineligible for SABR due to tumour size or proximity to organs at risk (OAR). Using Pinnacle auto-planning, three SABR plans were generated for each patient: a regular planning target volume margin plan, a reduced margin plan (gross tumour volume GTV+3 mm) and a non-margin plan. Targets were planned to 48Gy/4 or 50Gy/5 fractions depending on location. Plans were compared in terms of target coverage, OAR doses and dosimetric acceptability based on local guidelines. Predictors of acceptability were investigated using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Compared to regular margin plans, both reduced margin and non-margin plans resulted in significant reductions to almost all dose constraints. Dose conformity was significantly worse in non-margin plans (P < 0.05) and strongly correlated with targets' surface area/volume ratio (R2  = 0.9, P < 0.05). 26% of reduced margin plans were acceptable, compared to 54% of non-margin plans. GTV overlap with OARs significantly affected plan acceptability (OR 0.008, 95% CI 0.001-0.073).

CONCLUSION

Margin reduction significantly reduced OAR doses enabling acceptable plans to be achieved for patients previously excluded from SABR. Indications for lung SABR may broaden as treatment accuracy continues to improve; further work is needed to identify patients most likely to benefit.

Knowledge-based radiation treatment planning: A data-driven method survey

This paper surveys the data-driven dose prediction methods investigated for knowledge-based planning (KBP) in the last decade. These methods were classified into two major categories-traditional KBP methods and deep-learning (DL) methods-according to their techniques of utilizing previous knowledge. Traditional KBP methods include studies that require geometric or anatomical features to either find the best-matched case(s) from a repository of prior treatment plans or to build dose prediction models. DL methods include studies that train neural networks to make dose predictions. A comprehensive review of each category is presented, highlighting key features, methods, and their advancements over the years. We separated the cited works according to the framework and cancer site in each category. Finally, we briefly discuss the performance of both traditional KBP methods and DL methods, then discuss future trends of both data-driven KBP methods to dose prediction.

Clinical Implementation of Automated Treatment Planning for Rectum Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Using Voxel-Based Dose Prediction and Post-Optimization Strategies

Purpose

This study aims to demonstrate the feasibility of clinical implementation of automated treatment planning (ATP) using voxel-based dose prediction and post-optimization strategies for rectal cancer on uRT (United Imaging Healthcare, Shanghai, China) treatment planning system.

Methods

A total of 180 previously treated rectal cancer cases were enrolled in this study, including 160 cases for training, 10 for validation and 10 for testing. Using CT image data, planning target volumes (PTVs) and contour delineation of the organs at risk (OARs) as input and three-dimensional (3D) dose distribution as output, a 3D-Uet DL model was developed. Based on the voxel-wise prediction dose distribution, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans were then generated automatedly using post-optimization strategies, including a complex clinical dose target metrics homogeneity index (HI) and conformation index (CI). To evaluate the performance of the proposed ATP approach, the dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters of OARs and PTV and the 3D dose distributions of the plan were compared with those of manual plans.

Results

By combining clinical post-optimization strategies, the automatically generated treatment plan can achieve better homogeneous PTV coverage and dose sparing for OARs except the mean dose for femoral-head compared with the use of the mean square error objective function alone. Compared with the manual plan, no statistically significant differences in HI, CI or global maximum dose were found. The manual plans perform slightly better than plans with post-optimization strategies in other dosimetric indexes, but these plans are still within clinical requirements.

Conclusions

With the help of clinical post-optimization strategies, the proposed new ATP solution can generate IMRT plans that are within clinically acceptable levels and comparable to plans manually generated by dosimetrists.

Optimizing radiotherapy plans for cancer treatment with Tensor Networks

We present a novel application of Tensor Network methods in cancer treatment as a potential tool to solve the dose optimization problem in radiotherapy. In particular, the intensity-modulated radiation therapy technique-that allows treating irregular and inhomogeneous tumors while reducing the radiation toxicity on healthy organs-is based on the optimization problem of the beamlets intensities that shall result in a maximal delivery of the therapy dose to cancer while avoiding the organs at risk of being damaged by the radiation. The resulting optimization problem is expressed as a cost function to be optimized. Here, we map the cost function into an Ising-like Hamiltonian, describing a system of long-range interacting qubits. Finally, we solve the dose optimization problem by finding the ground-state of the Hamiltonian using a Tree Tensor Network algorithm. In particular, we present an anatomical scenario exemplifying a prostate cancer treatment. A similar approach can be applied to future hybrid classical-quantum algorithms, paving the way for the use of quantum technologies in future medical treatments.

Knowledge-based intensity-modulated proton planning for gastroesophageal carcinoma

PURPOSE

To investigate the performance of a narrow-scope knowledge-based RapidPlan (RP) model, for optimisation of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans applied to patients with locally advanced carcinoma in the gastroesophageal junction.

METHODS

A cohort of 60 patients was retrospectively selected; 45 were used to 'train' a dose-volume histogram predictive model; the remaining 15 provided independent validation. The performance of the RP model was benchmarked against manual optimisation. Quantitative assessment was based on several dose-volume metrics.

RESULTS

Manual and RP-optimised IMPT plans resulted dosimetrically similar, and the planning dose-volume objectives were met for all structures. Concerning the validation set, the comparison of the manual vs RP-based plans, respectively, showed for the target (PTV): the homogeneity index was 6.3 ± 2.2 vs 5.9 ± 1.2, and V98% was 89.3 ± 2.9 vs 91.4 ± 2.2% (this was 97.2 ± 1.9 vs 98.8 ± 1.1 for the CTV). Regarding the organs at risk, no significant differences were reported for the combined lungs, the whole heart, the left anterior descending artery, the kidneys, the spleen and the spinal canal. The D_0.1 cm3 for the left ventricle resulted in 40.3 ± 3.4 vs 39.7 ± 4.3 Gy(RBE). The mean dose to the liver was 3.4 ± 1.3 vs 3.6 ± 1.5 Gy(RBE).

CONCLUSION

A narrow-scope knowledge-based RP model was trained and validated for IMPT delivery in locally advanced cancer of the gastroesophageal junction. The results demonstrate that RP can create models for effective IMPT. Furthermore, the equivalence between manual interactive and unattended RP-based optimisation could be displayed. The data also showed a high correlation between predicted and achieved doses in support of the valuable predictive power of the RP method.

The role of a knowledge based dose-volume histogram predictive model in the optimisation of intensity-modulated proton plans for hepatocellular carcinoma patients : Training and validation of a novel commercial system

PURPOSE

To investigate the performance of a knowledge-based RapidPlan, for optimisation of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans applied to hepatocellular cancer (HCC) patients.

METHODS

A cohort of 65 patients was retrospectively selected: 50 were used to "train" the model, while the remaining 15 provided independent validation. The performance of the RapidPlan model was benchmarked against manual optimisation and was also compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy (RapidArc) photon plans. A subanalysis appraised the performance of the RapidPlan model applied to patients with lesions ≤300 cm³ or larger. Quantitative assessment was based on several metrics derived from the constraints of the NRG-GI003 clinical trial.

RESULTS

There was an equivalence between manual plans and RapidPlan-optimised IMPT plans, which outperformed the RapidArc plans. The planning dose-volume objectives were met on average for all structures except for D_0.5 cm3 ≤30 Gy in the bowels. Limiting the results to the class-solution proton plans (all values in Gy), the data for manual plans vs RapidPlan-based IMPT plans, respectively, showed the following: D_99% to the target of 47.5 ± 1.4 vs 47.2 ± 1.2; for organs at risk, the mean dose to the healthy liver was 6.7 ± 3.6 vs 6.7 ± 3.7; the mean dose to the kidneys was 0.2 ± 0.5 vs 0.1 ± 0.2; D_0.5 cm3 for the bowels was 33.4 ± 16.4 vs 30.2 ± 16.0; for the stomach was 17.9 ± 19.9 vs 14.9 ± 18.8; for the oesophagus was 17.9 ± 15.1 vs 14.9 ± 13.9; for the spinal cord was 0.5 ± 1.6 vs 0.2 ± 0.7. The model performed similarly for cases with small or large lesions.

CONCLUSION

A knowledge-based RapidPlan model was trained and validated for IMPT. The results demonstrate that RapidPlan can be trained adequately for IMPT in HCC. The quality of the RapidPlan-based plans is at least equivalent compared to what is achievable with manual planning. RapidPlan also confirmed the potential to optimise the quality of the proton therapy results, thus reducing the impact of operator planning skills on patient results.

Accounting for Range Uncertainties in the Optimization of Combined Proton-Photon Treatments Via Stochastic Optimization

PURPOSE

Proton treatment slots are a limited resource. Combined proton-photon treatments, in which most fractions are delivered with photons and only a few with protons, may represent a practical solution to optimize the allocation of proton resources over the patient population. We demonstrate how a limited number of proton fractions can be optimally used in multimodality treatments and address the issue of the robustness of combined treatments against proton range uncertainties.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Combined proton-photon treatments are planned by simultaneously optimizing intensity modulated radiation therapy and proton therapy plans while accounting for the fractionation effect through the biologically effective dose model. The method was investigated for different tumor sites (a spinal metastasis, a sacral chordoma, and an atypical meningioma) in which organs at risk (OARs) were located within or near the tumor. Stochastic optimization was applied to mitigate range uncertainties.

RESULTS

In optimal combinations, proton and photon fractions deliver similar doses to OARs overlaying the target volume to protect these dose-limiting normal tissues through fractionation. Meanwhile, parts of the tumor are hypofractionated with protons. Thus, the total dose delivered with photons is reduced compared with simple combinations in which each modality delivers the prescribed dose per fraction to the target volume. The benefit of optimal combinations persists when range errors are accounted for via stochastic optimization.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited proton resources are optimally used in combined treatments if parts of the tumor are hypofractionated with protons and near-uniform fractionation is maintained in serial OARs. Proton range uncertainties can be efficiently accounted for through stochastic optimization and are not an obstacle for clinical application.

Particle therapy tumour outcomes: An updated systematic review

Particle therapy (PT) offers the potential for reduced normal tissue damage as well as escalation of target dose, thereby enhancing the therapeutic ratio in radiation therapy. Reflecting the building momentum of PT use worldwide, construction has recently commenced for The Australian Bragg Centre for Proton Therapy and Research in Adelaide - the first PT centre in Australia. This systematic review aims to update the clinical evidence base for PT, both proton beam and carbon ion therapy. The purpose is to inform clinical decision-making for referral of patients to PT centres in Australia as they become operational and overseas in the interim. Three major databases were searched by two independent researchers, and evidence quality was classified according to the National Health and Medical Research Council evidence hierarchy. One hundred and thirty-six studies were included, two-thirds related to proton beam therapy alone. PT at the very least provides equivalent tumour outcomes compared to photon controls with the possibility of improved control in the case of carbon ion therapy. There is suggestion of reduced morbidities in a range of tumour sites, supporting the predictions from dosimetric modelling and the wide international acceptance of PT for specific indications based on this. Though promising, this needs to be counterbalanced by the overall low quality of evidence found, with 90% of studies of level IV (case series) evidence. Prospective comparative clinical trials, supplemented by database-derived outcome information, preferably conducted within international and national networks, are strongly recommended as PT is introduced into Australasia.

Combined proton-photon treatments - A new approach to proton therapy without a gantry

PURPOSE

Although the number of proton therapy centres is growing worldwide, proton therapy is still a limited resource. The primary reasons are gantry size and cost. Therefore, we investigate the potential of a new design for proton therapy, which may facilitate proton treatments in conventional bunkers and allow the widespread use of protons.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The treatment room consists of a standard Linac for IMRT, a motorized couch for treatments in lying position, and a horizontal proton beamline equipped with pencil beam scanning. As proton beams are limited to a coronal plane, treatment plans may be suboptimal for many tumour sites. However, high-quality plans may be realized by combining protons and photons. Treatment planning is performed by simultaneously optimizing IMRT and IMPT plans based on their cumulative physical dose. We demonstrate this concept for three head&neck cancer cases.

RESULTS

Optimal combinations use photons to improve dose conformity while protons reduce the integral dose to normal tissues. In fact, combined treatments improve on single-modality IMRT and fixed beamline IMPT plans for quality-of-life-limiting OARs and retain most of the integral dose reduction in the healthy tissues of the pure IMPT plans. The lower doses that can be obtained with multi-modality treatments reduce the risk for side effects compared to single-modality IMRT plans.

CONCLUSION

Combined proton-photon treatments may play a role in developing a new solution for proton therapy without a gantry. Optimal combinations improve on IMRT plans and reduce the risk of side effects while making protons available to more patients.

Treatment planning for proton therapy: what is needed in the next 10 years?

Treatment planning is the process where the prescription of the radiation oncologist is translated into a deliverable treatment. With the complexity of contemporary radiotherapy, treatment planning cannot be performed without a computerized treatment planning system. Proton therapy (PT) enables highly conformal treatment plans with a minimum of dose to tissues outside the target volume, but to obtain the most optimal plan for the treatment, there are a multitude of parameters that need to be addressed. In this review areas of ongoing improvements and research in the field of PT treatment planning are identified and discussed. The main focus is on issues of immediate clinical and practical relevance to the PT community highlighting the needs for the near future but also in a longer perspective. We anticipate that the manual tasks performed by treatment planners in the future will involve a high degree of computational thinking, as many issues can be solved much better by e.g. scripting. More accurate and faster dose calculation algorithms are needed, automation for contouring and planning is required and practical tools to handle the variable biological efficiency in PT is urgently demanded just to mention a few of the expected improvements over the coming 10 years.

Knowledge-based planning for intensity-modulated radiation therapy: A review of data-driven approaches

Purpose

Intensity‐Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT), including its variations (including IMRT, Volumetric Arc Therapy (VMAT), and Tomotherapy), is a widely used and critically important technology for cancer treatment. It is a knowledge‐intensive technology due not only to its own technical complexity, but also to the inherently conflicting nature of maximizing tumor control while minimizing normal organ damage. As IMRT experience and especially the carefully designed clinical plan data are accumulated during the past two decades, a new set of methods commonly termed knowledge‐based planning (KBP) have been developed that aim to improve the quality and efficiency of IMRT planning by learning from the database of past clinical plans. Some of this development has led to commercial products recently that allowed the investigation of KBP in numerous clinical applications. In this literature review, we will attempt to present a summary of published methods of knowledge‐based approaches in IMRT and recent clinical validation results.

Methods

In March 2018, a literature search was conducted in the NIH Medline database using the PubMed interface to identify publications that describe methods and validations related to KBP in IMRT including variations such as VMAT and Tomotherapy. The search criteria were designed to have a broad scope to capture relevant results with high sensitivity. The authors filtered down the search results according to a predefined selection criteria by reviewing the titles and abstracts first and then by reviewing the full text. A few papers were added to the list based on the references of the reviewed papers. The final set of papers was reviewed and summarized here.

Results

The initial search yielded a total of 740 articles. A careful review of the titles, abstracts, and eventually the full text and then adding relevant articles from reviewing the references resulted in a final list of 73 articles published between 2011 and early 2018. These articles described methods for developing knowledge models for predicting such parameters as dosimetric and dose‐volume points, voxel‐level doses, and objective function weights that improve or automate IMRT planning for various cancer sites, addressing different clinical and quality assurance needs, and using a variety of machine learning approaches. A number of articles reported carefully designed clinical studies that assessed the performance of KBP models in realistic clinical applications. Overwhelming majority of the studies demonstrated the benefits of KBP in achieving comparable and often improved quality of IMRT planning while reducing planning time and plan quality variation.

Conclusions

The number of KBP‐related studies has been steadily increasing since 2011 indicating a growing interest in applying this approach to clinical applications. Validation studies have generally shown KBP to produce plans with quality comparable to expert planners while reducing the time and efforts to generate plans. However, current studies are mostly retrospective and leverage relatively small datasets. Larger datasets collected through multi‐institutional collaboration will enable the development of more advanced models to further improve the performance of KBP in complex clinical cases. Prospective studies will be an important next step toward widespread adoption of this exciting technology.

Evaluation of an Automated Proton Planning Solution

Purpose Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatments are increasing, however, treatment planning remains complex and prone to variability. RapidPlanTMPT (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, California, USA) is a pre-clinical, proton-specific, automated knowledge-based planning solution which could reduce variability and increase efficiency. It uses a library of previous IMPT treatment plans to generate a model which can predict organ-at-risk (OAR) dose for new patients, and guide IMPT optimization. This study details and evaluates RapidPlanTMPT. Methods IMPT treatment plans for 50 head-and-neck cancer patients populated the model-library. The model was then used to create knowledge-based plans (KBPs) for 10 evaluation-patients. Model quality and accuracy were evaluated using model-provided OAR regression plots and examining the difference between predicted and achieved KBP mean dose. KBP quality was assessed through comparison with respective manual IMPT plans on the basis of boost/elective planning target volume (PTVB/PTVE) homogeneity and OAR sparing. The time to create KBPs was recorded. Results Model quality was good, with an average R2 of 0.85 between dosimetric and geometric features. The model showed high predictive accuracy with differences of <3 Gy between predicted and achieved OAR mean doses for 88/109 OARs. On average, KBPs were comparable to manual IMPT plans with differences of <0.6% in homogeneity. Only 2 of 109 OARs in KBPs had a mean dose >3 Gy more than the manual plan. On average, dose-volume histogram (DVH) predictions required 0.7 minutes while KBP optimization and dose calculation required 4.1 minutes (a 'continue optimization' phase, if required, took an additional 2.8 minutes, on average). Conclusions RapidPlanTMPT demonstrated efficiency and consistency and IMPT KBPs were comparable to manual plans. Because worse OAR sparing in a KBP was not always associated with geometric-outlier warnings, manual plan checks remain important. Such an automated planning solution could also assist in clinical trial quality assurance and overcome the learning curve associated with IMPT.

Clinical Trial Strategies to Compare Protons With Photons

The favorable beam properties of protons can be translated into clinical benefits by target dose escalation to improve local control without enhancing unacceptable radiation toxicity or to spare normal tissues to prevent radiation-induced side effects without jeopardizing local tumor control. For the clinical validation of the added value of protons to improve local control, randomized controlled trials are required. For the clinical validation of the added value of protons to prevent side effects, both model-based validation or randomized controlled trials can be used. Model-based patient selection for proton therapy is crucial, independent of the validation approach. Combining these approaches in rapid learning health care systems is expected to yield the most efficient and scientifically sound way to continuously improve patient selection and the therapeutic window, eventually leading to more cancer survivors with better quality of life.

Automated Knowledge-Based Intensity-Modulated Proton Planning: An International Multicenter Benchmarking Study

Background: Radiotherapy treatment planning is increasingly automated and knowledge-based planning has been shown to match and sometimes improve upon manual clinical plans, with increased consistency and efficiency. In this study, we benchmarked a novel prototype knowledge-based intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) planning solution, against three international proton centers. Methods: A model library was constructed, comprising 50 head and neck cancer (HNC) manual IMPT plans from a single center. Three external-centers each provided seven manual benchmark IMPT plans. A knowledge-based plan (KBP) using a standard beam arrangement for each patient was compared with the benchmark plan on the basis of planning target volume (PTV) coverage and homogeneity and mean organ-at-risk (OAR) dose. Results: PTV coverage and homogeneity of KBPs and benchmark plans were comparable. KBP mean OAR dose was lower in 32/54, 45/48 and 38/53 OARs from center-A, -B and -C, with 23/32, 38/45 and 23/38 being >2 Gy improvements, respectively. In isolated cases the standard beam arrangement or an OAR not being included in the model or being contoured differently, led to higher individual KBP OAR doses. Generating a KBP typically required <10 min. Conclusions: A knowledge-based IMPT planning solution using a single-center model could efficiently generate plans of comparable quality to manual HNC IMPT plans from centers with differing planning aims. Occasional higher KBP OAR doses highlight the need for beam angle optimization and manual review of KBPs. The solution furthermore demonstrated the potential for robust optimization.

Automation in intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment planning-a review of recent innovations

Radiotherapy treatment planning of complex radiotherapy techniques, such as intensity modulated radiotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy, is a resource-intensive process requiring a high level of treatment planner intervention to ensure high plan quality. This can lead to variability in the quality of treatment plans and the efficiency in which plans are produced, depending on the skills and experience of the operator and available planning time. Within the last few years, there has been significant progress in the research and development of intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment planning approaches with automation support, with most commercial manufacturers now offering some form of solution. There is a rapidly growing number of research articles published in the scientific literature on the topic. This paper critically reviews the body of publications up to April 2018. The review describes the different types of automation algorithms, including the advantages and current limitations. Also included is a discussion on the potential issues with routine clinical implementation of such software, and highlights areas for future research.

Impact of model and dose uncertainty on model-based selection of oropharyngeal cancer patients for proton therapy

BACKGROUND

Proton therapy is becoming increasingly available, so it is important to apply objective and individualized patient selection to identify those who are expected to benefit most from proton therapy compared to conventional intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Comparative treatment planning using normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) evaluation has recently been proposed. This work investigates the impact of NTCP model and dose uncertainties on model-based patient selection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We used IMRT and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatment plans of 78 oropharyngeal cancer patients, which were generated based on automated treatment planning and evaluated based on three published NTCP models. A reduction in NTCP of more than a certain threshold (e.g. 10% lower NTCP) leads to patient selection for IMPT, referred to as 'nominal' selection. To simulate the effect of uncertainties in NTCP-model coefficients (based on reported confidence intervals) and planned doses on the accuracy of model-based patient selection, the Monte Carlo method was used to sample NTCP-model coefficients and doses from a probability distribution centered at their nominal values. Patient selection accuracy within a certain sample was defined as the fraction of patients which had similar selection in both the 'nominal' and 'sampled' scenario.

RESULTS

For all three NTCP models, the median patient selection accuracy was found to be above 70% when only NTCP-model uncertainty was considered. Selection accuracy decreased with increasing uncertainty resulting from differences between planned and delivered dose. In case of excessive dose uncertainty, selection accuracy decreased to 60%.

CONCLUSION

Model and dose uncertainty highly influence the accuracy of model-based patient selection for proton therapy. A reduction of NTCP-model uncertainty is necessary to reach more accurate model-based patient selection.