Predicting dosimetric indices in IMRT planning for lung cancer patients

Tree-based exploration of the optimization objectives for automatic cervical cancer IMRT treatment planning

OBJECTIVE

To develop and evaluate a practical automatic treatment planning method for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in cervical cancer cases.

METHODS

A novel algorithm named as Optimization Objectives Tree Search Algorithm (OOTSA) was proposed to emulate the planning optimization process and achieve a progressively improving IMRT plan, based on the Eclipse Scripting Application Programming Interface (ESAPI). 30 previously treated cervical cancer cases were selected from the clinical database and comparison was made between the OOTSA-generated plans and clinical treated plans and RapidPlan-based (RP) plans.

RESULTS

In clinical evaluation, compared with plan scores of the clinical plans and the RP plans, 22 and 26 of the OOTSA plans were considered as clinically improved in terms of plan quality, respectively. The average conformity index (CI) for the PTV in the OOTSA plans was 0.86 ± 0.01 (mean ± 1 standard deviation), better than those in the RP plans (0.83 ± 0.02) and the clinical plans (0.71 ± 0.11). Compared with the clinical plans, the mean doses of femoral head, rectum, spinal cord and right kidney in the OOTSA plans were reduced by 2.34 ± 2.87 Gy, 1.67 ± 2.10 Gy, 4.12 ± 6.44 Gy and 1.15 ± 2.67 Gy. Compared with the RP plans, the mean doses of femoral head, spinal cord, right kidney and small intestine in the OOTSA plans were reduced by 3.31 ± 1.55 Gy, 4.25 ± 3.69 Gy, 1.54 ± 2.23 Gy and 3.33 ± 1.91 Gy, respectively. In the OOTSA plans, the mean dose of bladder was slightly increased, with 2.33 ± 2.55 Gy (versus clinical plans) and 1.37 ± 1.74 Gy (vs RP plans). The average elapsed time of OOTSA and clinical planning were 59.2 ± 3.47 min and 76.53 ± 5.19 min.

CONCLUSION

The plans created by OOTSA have been shown marginally better than the manual plans, especially in preserving OARs. In addition, the time of automatic treatment planning has shown a reduction compared to a manual planning process, and the variation of plan quality was greatly reduced. Although improvement on the algorithm is warranted, this proof-of-concept study has demonstrated that the proposed approach can be a practical solution for automatic planning.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

The proposed method is novel in the emulation strategy of the physicists' iterative operation during the planning process. Based on the existing optimizers, this method can be a simple yet effective solution for automated IMRT treatment planning.

Validation of in-house knowledge-based planning model for advance-stage lung cancer patients treated using VMAT radiotherapy

OBJECTIVES

Radiotherapy plan quality may vary considerably depending on planner's experience and time constraints. The variability in treatment plans can be assessed by calculating the difference between achieved and the optimal dose distribution. The achieved treatment plans may still be suboptimal if there is further scope to reduce organs-at-risk doses without compromising target coverage and deliverability. This study aims to develop a knowledge-based planning (KBP) model to reduce variability of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) lung plans by predicting minimum achievable lung volume-dose metrics.

METHODS

Dosimetric and geometric data collected from 40 retrospective plans were used to develop KBP models aiming to predict the minimum achievable lung dose metrics via calculating the ratio of the residual lung volume to the total lung volume. Model accuracy was verified by replanning 40 plans. Plan complexity metrics were calculated using locally developed script and their effect on treatment delivery was assessed via measurement.

RESULTS

The use of KBP resulted in significant reduction in plan variability in all three studied dosimetric parameters V5, V20 and mean lung dose by 4.9% (p = 0.007, 10.8 to 5.9%), 1.3% (p = 0.038, 4.0 to 2.7%) and 0.9 Gy (p = 0.012, 2.5 to 1.6Gy), respectively. It also increased lung sparing without compromising the overall plan quality. The accuracy of the model was proven as clinically acceptable. Plan complexity increased compared to original plans; however, the implication on delivery errors was clinically insignificant as demonstrated by plan verification measurements.

CONCLUSION

Our in-house model for VMAT lung plans led to a significant reduction in plan variability with concurrent decrease in lung dose. Our study also demonstrated that treatment delivery verifications are important prior to clinical implementation of KBP models.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

In-house KBP models can predict minimum achievable lung dose-volume constraints for advance-stage lung cancer patients treated with VMAT. The study demonstrates that plan complexity could increase and should be assessed prior to clinical implementation.

Comparison of 2 methods for prediction of liver dosimetric indices in hepatocellular cancer IMRT planning

To evaluate the performance of 2 methods predicting liver dosimetric indices for hepatocellular cancer patients treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Two predicting methods were implemented to build correlation between geometric and dosimetric information of hepatocellular cancer IMRT plans. One method used Principle Component Analysis method to simplify information and Support Vector Machine (SVM) regression method to build correlation. The other method used a simple linear function to map volumes of certain regions to dosimetic indices. Thirty eight hepatocellular cancer IMRT plans were randomly selected to train the 2 methods. The effectiveness of the 2 methods was validated using another 8 plans. Liver dosimetric indices V₁₀, V₂₀, V₃₀, and mean dose of the 8 plans in validation cohort were calculated using the predicting methods. The predicted indices were compared with the indices derived from the clinically accepted treatment plans. The absolute differences of V₁₀ calculated with the SVM method and the actual values of treatment plans had a mean value of 7.87%. And the values for V₂₀, V₃₀, and mean dose were 4.37%, 4.41%, and 4.20%, respectively. The absolute differences of V₁₀ calculated with the linear formulation method and the actual values of treatment plans had a mean value of 6.09%. And the values for V₂₀, V₃₀, and mean dose were 5.28%, 5.05%, and 5.92%, respectively. These 2 methods have similar accuracy in predicting dosimetric indices V₁₀, V₂₀, V₃₀ of livers. The predicting of V₃₀ and V₂₀ is more accurate than the predicting of V₁₀. The SVM method is more accurate in predicting mean liver dose.