Adaptive and robust radiation therapy in the presence of drift

The Role of Machine Learning in Knowledge-Based Response-Adapted Radiotherapy

With the continuous increase in radiotherapy patient-specific data from multimodality imaging and biotechnology molecular sources, knowledge-based response-adapted radiotherapy (KBR-ART) is emerging as a vital area for radiation oncology personalized treatment. In KBR-ART, planned dose distributions can be modified based on observed cues in patients' clinical, geometric, and physiological parameters. In this paper, we present current developments in the field of adaptive radiotherapy (ART), the progression toward KBR-ART, and examine several applications of static and dynamic machine learning approaches for realizing the KBR-ART framework potentials in maximizing tumor control and minimizing side effects with respect to individual radiotherapy patients. Specifically, three questions required for the realization of KBR-ART are addressed: (1) what knowledge is needed; (2) how to estimate RT outcomes accurately; and (3) how to adapt optimally. Different machine learning algorithms for KBR-ART application shall be discussed and contrasted. Representative examples of different KBR-ART stages are also visited.

Toward robust adaptive radiation therapy strategies

PURPOSE

To set up a framework combining robust treatment planning with adaptive re-optimization in order to maintain high treatment quality, to respond to interfractional geometric variations and to identify those patients who will benefit the most from an adaptive fractionation schedule.

METHODS

The authors propose robust adaptive strategies based on stochastic minimax optimization for a series of simulated treatments on a one-dimensional patient phantom. The plan applied during the first fractions should be able to handle anticipated systematic and random errors. Information on the individual geometric variations is gathered at each fraction. At scheduled fractions, the impact of the measured errors on the delivered dose distribution is evaluated. For a patient having received a dose that does not satisfy specified plan quality criteria, the plan is re-optimized based on these individually measured errors. The re-optimized plan is then applied during subsequent fractions until a new scheduled adaptation becomes necessary. In this study, three different adaptive strategies are introduced and investigated. (a) In the first adaptive strategy, the measured systematic and random error scenarios and their assigned probabilities are updated to guide the robust re-optimization. (b) In the second strategy, the degree of conservativeness is adapted in response to the measured dose delivery errors. (c) In the third strategy, the uncertainty margins around the target are recalculated based on the measured errors. The simulated treatments are subjected to systematic and random errors that are either similar to the anticipated errors or unpredictably larger in order to critically evaluate the performance of these three adaptive strategies.

RESULTS

According to the simulations, robustly optimized treatment plans provide sufficient treatment quality for those treatment error scenarios similar to the anticipated error scenarios. Moreover, combining robust planning with adaptation leads to improved organ-at-risk protection. In case of unpredictably larger treatment errors, the first strategy in combination with at most weekly adaptation performs best at notably improving treatment quality in terms of target coverage and organ-at-risk protection in comparison with a non-adaptive approach and the other adaptive strategies.

CONCLUSION

The authors present a framework that provides robust plan re-optimization or margin adaptation of a treatment plan in response to interfractional geometric errors throughout the fractionated treatment. According to the simulations, these robust adaptive treatment strategies are able to identify candidates for an adaptive treatment, thus giving the opportunity to provide individualized plans, and improve their treatment quality through adaptation. The simulated robust adaptive framework is a guide for further development of optimally controlled robust adaptive therapy models.

Robust PET-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy

PURPOSE

Functional image guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy has the potential to improve cancer treatment quality by basing treatment parameters such as heterogeneous dose distributions information derived from imaging. However, such heterogeneous dose distributions are subject to imaging uncertainty. In this paper, the authors develop a robust optimization model to design plans that are desensitized to imaging uncertainty.

METHODS

Starting from the pretreatment fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography scans, the authors use the raw voxel standard uptake values (SUVs) as input into a series of intermediate functions to transform the SUV into a desired dose. The calculated desired doses were used as an input into a robust optimization model to generate beamlet intensities. For each voxel, the authors assume that the true SUV cannot be observed but instead resides in an interval centered on the nominal (i.e., observed) SUV. Then the authors evaluated the nominal and robust solutions through a simulation study. The simulation considered the effect of the true SUV being different from the nominal SUV on the quality of the treatment plan. Treatment plans were compared on the metrics of objective function value and tumor control probability (TCP).

RESULTS

Computational results demonstrate the potential for improvements in tumor control probability and deviation from the desired dose distribution compared to a nonrobust model while maintaining acceptable tissue dose.

CONCLUSIONS

Robust optimization can help design treatment plans that are more stable in the presence of image value uncertainties.

The perils of adapting to dose errors in radiation therapy

We consider adaptive robust methods for lung cancer that are also dose-reactive, wherein the treatment is modified after each treatment session to account for the dose delivered in prior treatment sessions. Such methods are of interest because they potentially allow for errors in the delivered dose to be corrected as the treatment progresses, thereby ensuring that the tumor receives a sufficient dose at the end of the treatment. We show through a computational study with real lung cancer patient data that while dose reaction is beneficial with respect to the final dose distribution, it may lead to exaggerated daily underdose and overdose relative to non-reactive methods that grows as the treatment progresses. However, by combining dose reaction with a mechanism for updating an estimate of the uncertainty, the magnitude of this growth can be mitigated substantially. The key finding of this paper is that reacting to dose errors – an adaptation strategy that is both simple and intuitively appealing – may backfire and lead to treatments that are clinically unacceptable.