1
|
Deasy JO. Data Science Opportunities To Improve Radiotherapy Planning and Clinical Decision Making. Semin Radiat Oncol 2024; 34:379-394. [PMID: 39271273 DOI: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2024.07.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/15/2024]
Abstract
Radiotherapy aims to achieve a high tumor control probability while minimizing damage to normal tissues. Personalizing radiotherapy treatments for individual patients, therefore, depends on integrating physical treatment planning with predictive models of tumor control and normal tissue complications. Predictive models could be improved using a wide range of rich data sources, including tumor and normal tissue genomics, radiomics, and dosiomics. Deep learning will drive improvements in classifying normal tissue tolerance, predicting intra-treatment tumor changes, tracking accumulated dose distributions, and quantifying the tumor response to radiotherapy based on imaging. Mechanistic patient-specific computer simulations ('digital twins') could also be used to guide adaptive radiotherapy. Overall, we are entering an era where improved modeling methods will allow the use of newly available data sources to better guide radiotherapy treatments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph O Deasy
- Department of Medical Physics, Attending Physicist, Chief, Service for Predictive Informatics, Chair, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY..
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Bookbinder A, Bobić M, Sharp GC, Nenoff L. An operator-independent quality assurance system for automatically generated structure sets. Phys Med Biol 2024; 69:175003. [PMID: 39047780 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad6742] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/25/2023] [Accepted: 07/23/2024] [Indexed: 07/27/2024]
Abstract
Objective. This study describes geometry-based and intensity-based tools for quality assurance (QA) of automatically generated structures for online adaptive radiotherapy, and designs an operator-independent traffic light system that identifies erroneous structure sets.Approach.A cohort of eight head and neck (HN) patients with daily CBCTs was selected for test development. Radiotherapy contours were propagated from planning computed tomography (CT) to daily cone beam CT (CBCT) using deformable image registration. These propagated structures were visually verified for acceptability. For each CBCT, several error scenarios were used to generate what were judged unacceptable structures. Ten additional HN patients with daily CBCTs and different error scenarios were selected for validation. A suite of tests based on image intensity, intensity gradient, and structure geometry was developed using acceptable and unacceptable HN planning structures. Combinations of one test applied to one structure, referred to as structure-test combinations, were selected for inclusion in the QA system based on their discriminatory power. A traffic light system was used to aggregate the structure-test combinations, and the system was evaluated on all fractions of the ten validation HN patients.Results.The QA system distinguished between acceptable and unacceptable fractions with high accuracy, labeling 294/324 acceptable fractions as green or yellow and 19/20 unacceptable fractions as yellow or red.Significance.This study demonstrates a system to supplement manual review of radiotherapy planning structures. Automated QA is performed by aggregating results from multiple intensity- and geometry-based tests.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander Bookbinder
- Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States of America
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY, United States of America
| | - Mislav Bobić
- ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States of America
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America
| | - Gregory C Sharp
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States of America
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America
| | - Lena Nenoff
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States of America
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology-OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Smolders A, Bengtsson I, Forsgren A, Lomax A, Weber DC, Fredriksson A, Albertini F. Robust optimization strategies for contour uncertainties in online adaptive radiation therapy. Phys Med Biol 2024; 69:165001. [PMID: 39025113 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad6526] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/22/2024] [Accepted: 07/18/2024] [Indexed: 07/20/2024]
Abstract
Objective.Online adaptive radiation therapy requires fast and automated contouring of daily scans for treatment plan re-optimization. However, automated contouring is imperfect and introduces contour uncertainties. This work aims at developing and comparing robust optimization strategies accounting for such uncertainties.Approach.A deep-learning method was used to predict the uncertainty of deformable image registration, and to generate a finite set of daily contour samples. Ten optimization strategies were compared: two baseline methods, five methods that convert contour samples into voxel-wise probabilities, and three methods accounting explicitly for contour samples as scenarios in robust optimization. Target coverage and organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing were evaluated robustly for simplified proton therapy plans for five head-and-neck cancer patients.Results.We found that explicitly including target contour uncertainty in robust optimization provides robust target coverage with better OAR sparing than the baseline methods, without increasing the optimization time. Although OAR doses first increased when increasing target robustness, this effect could be prevented by additionally including robustness to OAR contour uncertainty. Compared to the probability-based methods, the scenario-based methods spared the OARs more, but increased integral dose and required more computation time.Significance.This work proposed efficient and beneficial strategies to mitigate contour uncertainty in treatment plan optimization. This facilitates the adoption of automatic contouring in online adaptive radiation therapy and, more generally, enables mitigation also of other sources of contour uncertainty in treatment planning.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Smolders
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Center for Proton Therapy, Switzerland
- Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - I Bengtsson
- Department of Mathematics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
- RaySearch Laboratories AB, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - A Forsgren
- Department of Mathematics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - A Lomax
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Center for Proton Therapy, Switzerland
- Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - D C Weber
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Center for Proton Therapy, Switzerland
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | | | - F Albertini
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Center for Proton Therapy, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Rivetti L, Studen A, Sharma M, Chan J, Jeraj R. Uncertainty estimation and evaluation of deformation image registration based convolutional neural networks. Phys Med Biol 2024; 69:115045. [PMID: 38749468 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad4c4f] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2024] [Accepted: 05/15/2024] [Indexed: 05/31/2024]
Abstract
Objective.Fast and accurate deformable image registration (DIR), including DIR uncertainty estimation, is essential for safe and reliable clinical deployment. While recent deep learning models have shown promise in predicting DIR with its uncertainty, challenges persist in proper uncertainty evaluation and hyperparameter optimization for these methods. This work aims to develop and evaluate a model that can perform fast DIR and predict its uncertainty in seconds.Approach.This study introduces a novel probabilistic multi-resolution image registration model utilizing convolutional neural networks to estimate a multivariate normal distributed dense displacement field (DDF) in a multimodal image registration problem. To assess the quality of the DDF distribution predicted by the model, we propose a new metric based on the Kullback-Leibler divergence. The performance of our approach was evaluated against three other DIR algorithms (VoxelMorph, Monte Carlo dropout, and Monte Carlo B-spline) capable of predicting uncertainty. The evaluation of the models included not only the quality of the deformation but also the reliability of the estimated uncertainty. Our application investigated the registration of a treatment planning computed tomography (CT) to follow-up cone beam CT for daily adaptive radiotherapy.Main results.The hyperparameter tuning of the models showed a trade-off between the estimated uncertainty's reliability and the deformation's accuracy. In the optimal trade-off, our model excelled in contour propagation and uncertainty estimation (p <0.05) compared to existing uncertainty estimation models. We obtained an average dice similarity coefficient of 0.89 and a KL-divergence of 0.15.Significance.By addressing challenges in DIR uncertainty estimation and evaluation, our work showed that both the DIR and its uncertainty can be reliably predicted, paving the way for safe deployment in a clinical environment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luciano Rivetti
- Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Andrej Studen
- Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
- Jožef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Manju Sharma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, United States of America
| | - Jason Chan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, United States of America
| | - Robert Jeraj
- Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
- Jožef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Wahid KA, Kaffey ZY, Farris DP, Humbert-Vidan L, Moreno AC, Rasmussen M, Ren J, Naser MA, Netherton TJ, Korreman S, Balakrishnan G, Fuller CD, Fuentes D, Dohopolski MJ. Artificial Intelligence Uncertainty Quantification in Radiotherapy Applications - A Scoping Review. MEDRXIV : THE PREPRINT SERVER FOR HEALTH SCIENCES 2024:2024.05.13.24307226. [PMID: 38798581 PMCID: PMC11118597 DOI: 10.1101/2024.05.13.24307226] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/29/2024]
Abstract
Background/purpose The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiotherapy (RT) is expanding rapidly. However, there exists a notable lack of clinician trust in AI models, underscoring the need for effective uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods. The purpose of this study was to scope existing literature related to UQ in RT, identify areas of improvement, and determine future directions. Methods We followed the PRISMA-ScR scoping review reporting guidelines. We utilized the population (human cancer patients), concept (utilization of AI UQ), context (radiotherapy applications) framework to structure our search and screening process. We conducted a systematic search spanning seven databases, supplemented by manual curation, up to January 2024. Our search yielded a total of 8980 articles for initial review. Manuscript screening and data extraction was performed in Covidence. Data extraction categories included general study characteristics, RT characteristics, AI characteristics, and UQ characteristics. Results We identified 56 articles published from 2015-2024. 10 domains of RT applications were represented; most studies evaluated auto-contouring (50%), followed by image-synthesis (13%), and multiple applications simultaneously (11%). 12 disease sites were represented, with head and neck cancer being the most common disease site independent of application space (32%). Imaging data was used in 91% of studies, while only 13% incorporated RT dose information. Most studies focused on failure detection as the main application of UQ (60%), with Monte Carlo dropout being the most commonly implemented UQ method (32%) followed by ensembling (16%). 55% of studies did not share code or datasets. Conclusion Our review revealed a lack of diversity in UQ for RT applications beyond auto-contouring. Moreover, there was a clear need to study additional UQ methods, such as conformal prediction. Our results may incentivize the development of guidelines for reporting and implementation of UQ in RT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kareem A. Wahid
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Zaphanlene Y. Kaffey
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - David P. Farris
- Research Medical Library, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Laia Humbert-Vidan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Amy C. Moreno
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | | | - Jintao Ren
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - Mohamed A. Naser
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Tucker J. Netherton
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Stine Korreman
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | | | - Clifton D. Fuller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - David Fuentes
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Michael J. Dohopolski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Knäusl B, Belotti G, Bertholet J, Daartz J, Flampouri S, Hoogeman M, Knopf AC, Lin H, Moerman A, Paganelli C, Rucinski A, Schulte R, Shimizu S, Stützer K, Zhang X, Zhang Y, Czerska K. A review of the clinical introduction of 4D particle therapy research concepts. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2024; 29:100535. [PMID: 38298885 PMCID: PMC10828898 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2024.100535] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/11/2023] [Revised: 12/12/2023] [Accepted: 01/04/2024] [Indexed: 02/02/2024] Open
Abstract
Background and purpose Many 4D particle therapy research concepts have been recently translated into clinics, however, remaining substantial differences depend on the indication and institute-related aspects. This work aims to summarise current state-of-the-art 4D particle therapy technology and outline a roadmap for future research and developments. Material and methods This review focused on the clinical implementation of 4D approaches for imaging, treatment planning, delivery and evaluation based on the 2021 and 2022 4D Treatment Workshops for Particle Therapy as well as a review of the most recent surveys, guidelines and scientific papers dedicated to this topic. Results Available technological capabilities for motion surveillance and compensation determined the course of each 4D particle treatment. 4D motion management, delivery techniques and strategies including imaging were diverse and depended on many factors. These included aspects of motion amplitude, tumour location, as well as accelerator technology driving the necessity of centre-specific dosimetric validation. Novel methodologies for X-ray based image processing and MRI for real-time tumour tracking and motion management were shown to have a large potential for online and offline adaptation schemes compensating for potential anatomical changes over the treatment course. The latest research developments were dominated by particle imaging, artificial intelligence methods and FLASH adding another level of complexity but also opportunities in the context of 4D treatments. Conclusion This review showed that the rapid technological advances in radiation oncology together with the available intrafractional motion management and adaptive strategies paved the way towards clinical implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Barbara Knäusl
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Gabriele Belotti
- Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy
| | - Jenny Bertholet
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Juliane Daartz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | - Mischa Hoogeman
- Department of Medical Physics & Informatics, HollandPTC, Delft, The Netherlands
- Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Department of Radiotherapy, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Antje C Knopf
- Institut für Medizintechnik und Medizininformatik Hochschule für Life Sciences FHNW, Muttenz, Switzerland
| | - Haibo Lin
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Astrid Moerman
- Department of Medical Physics & Informatics, HollandPTC, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - Chiara Paganelli
- Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy
| | - Antoni Rucinski
- Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, PL-31342 Krakow, Poland
| | - Reinhard Schulte
- Division of Biomedical Engineering Sciences, School of Medicine, Loma Linda University
| | - Shing Shimizu
- Department of Carbon Ion Radiotherapy, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
| | - Kristin Stützer
- OncoRay – National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden – Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology – OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
| | - Xiaodong Zhang
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ye Zhang
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen PSI, Switzerland
| | - Katarzyna Czerska
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen PSI, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Nenoff L, Amstutz F, Murr M, Archibald-Heeren B, Fusella M, Hussein M, Lechner W, Zhang Y, Sharp G, Vasquez Osorio E. Review and recommendations on deformable image registration uncertainties for radiotherapy applications. Phys Med Biol 2023; 68:24TR01. [PMID: 37972540 PMCID: PMC10725576 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad0d8a] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/11/2023] [Revised: 10/30/2023] [Accepted: 11/15/2023] [Indexed: 11/19/2023]
Abstract
Deformable image registration (DIR) is a versatile tool used in many applications in radiotherapy (RT). DIR algorithms have been implemented in many commercial treatment planning systems providing accessible and easy-to-use solutions. However, the geometric uncertainty of DIR can be large and difficult to quantify, resulting in barriers to clinical practice. Currently, there is no agreement in the RT community on how to quantify these uncertainties and determine thresholds that distinguish a good DIR result from a poor one. This review summarises the current literature on sources of DIR uncertainties and their impact on RT applications. Recommendations are provided on how to handle these uncertainties for patient-specific use, commissioning, and research. Recommendations are also provided for developers and vendors to help users to understand DIR uncertainties and make the application of DIR in RT safer and more reliable.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lena Nenoff
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States of America
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America
- OncoRay—National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden—Rossendorf, Dresden Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden—Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology—OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
| | - Florian Amstutz
- Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen PSI, Switzerland
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Martina Murr
- Section for Biomedical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tübingen, Germany
| | | | - Marco Fusella
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Abano Terme Hospital, Italy
| | - Mohammad Hussein
- Metrology for Medical Physics, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, United Kingdom
| | - Wolfgang Lechner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Austria
| | - Ye Zhang
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen PSI, Switzerland
| | - Greg Sharp
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States of America
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America
| | - Eliana Vasquez Osorio
- Division of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|