Computerized triplet beam orientation optimization for MRI-guided Co-60 radiotherapy

A unified path seeking algorithm for IMRT and IMPT beam orientation optimization

Objective. Fully automated beam orientation optimization (BOO) for intensity-modulated radiotherapy and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is gaining interest, since achieving optimal plan quality for an unknown number of fixed beam arrangements is tedious. Fast group sparsity-based optimization methods have been proposed to find the optimal orientation, but manual tuning is required to eliminate the exact number of beams from a large candidate set. Here, we introduce a fast, automated gradient descent-based path-seeking algorithm (PathGD), which performs fluence map optimization for sequentially added beams, to visualize the dosimetric benefit of one added field at a time.Approach. Several configurations of 2-4 proton and 5-15 photon beams were selected for three head-and-neck patients using PathGD, which was compared to group sparsity-regularized BOO solved with the fast iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm (GS-FISTA), and manually selected IMPT beams or one coplanar photon VMAT arc (MAN). Once beams were chosen, all plans were compared on computational efficiency, dosimetry, and for proton plans, robustness.Main results. With each added proton beam, Clinical Target Volume (CTV) and organs at risk (OAR) dosimetric cost improved on average across plans by [1.1%, 13.6%], and for photons, [0.6%, 2.0%]. Comparing algorithms, beam selection for PathGD was faster than GS-FISTA on average by 35%, and PathGD matched the CTV coverage of GS-FISTA plans while reducing OAR mean and maximum dose in all structures by an average of 13.6%. PathGD was able to improve CTV [Dmax, D95%] by [2.6%, 5.2%] and reduced worst-case [max, mean] dose in OARs by [11.1%, 13.1%].Significance. The benefit of a path-seeking algorithm is the beam-by-beam analysis of dosimetric cost. PathGD was shown to be most efficient and dosimetrically desirable amongst group sparsity and manual BOO methods, and highlights the sensitivity of beam addition for IMPT in particular.

A reinforcement learning application of a guided Monte Carlo Tree Search algorithm for beam orientation selection in radiation therapy

Current beam orientation optimization algorithms for radiotherapy, such as column generation (CG), are typically heuristic or greedy in nature because of the size of the combinatorial problem, which leads to suboptimal solutions. We propose a reinforcement learning strategy using a Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) that can find a better beam orientation set in less time than CG. We utilize a reinforcement learning structure involving a supervised learning network to guide the MCTS and to explore the decision space of beam orientation selection problems. We previously trained a deep neural network (DNN) that takes in the patient anatomy, organ weights, and current beams, then approximates beam fitness values to indicate the next best beam to add. Here, we use this DNN to probabilistically guide the traversal of the branches of the Monte Carlo decision tree to add a new beam to the plan. To assess the feasibility of the algorithm, we used a test set of 13 prostate cancer patients, distinct from the 57 patients originally used to train and validate the DNN, to solve five-beam plans. To show the strength of the guided MCTS (GTS) compared to other search methods, we also provided the performances of Guided Search, Uniform Tree Search and Random Search algorithms. On average, GTS outperformed all the other methods. It found a better solution than CG in 237 s on average, compared to 360 s for CG, and outperformed all other methods in finding a solution with a lower objective function value in less than 1000 s. Using our GTS method, we could maintain planning target volume (PTV) coverage within 1% error similar to CG, while reducing the organ-at-risk mean dose for body, rectum, left and right femoral heads; the mean dose to bladder was 1% higher with GTS than with CG.

A feasibility study on deep learning-based individualized 3D dose distribution prediction

PURPOSE

Radiation therapy treatment planning is a trial-and-error, often time-consuming process. An approximately optimal dose distribution corresponding to a specific patient's anatomy can be predicted by using pre-trained deep learning (DL) models. However, dose distributions are often optimized based not only on patient-specific anatomy but also on physicians' preferred trade-offs between planning target volume (PTV) coverage and organ at risk (OAR) sparing or among different OARs. Therefore, it is desirable to allow physicians to fine-tune the dose distribution predicted based on patient anatomy. In this work, we developed a DL model to predict the individualized 3D dose distributions by using not only the patient's anatomy but also the desired PTV/OAR trade-offs, as represented by a dose volume histogram (DVH), as inputs.

METHODS

In this work, we developed a modified U-Net network to predict the 3D dose distribution by using patient PTV/OAR masks and the desired DVH as inputs. The desired DVH, fine-tuned by physicians from the initially predicted DVH, is first projected onto the Pareto surface, then converted into a vector, and then concatenated with feature maps encoded from the PTV/OAR masks. The network output for training is the dose distribution corresponding to the Pareto optimal DVH. The training/validation datasets contain 77 prostate cancer patients, and the testing dataset has 20 patients.

RESULTS

The trained model can predict a 3D dose distribution that is approximately Pareto optimal while having the DVH closest to the input desired DVH. We calculated the difference between the predicted dose distribution and the optimized dose distribution that has a DVH closest to the desired one for the PTV and for all OARs as a quantitative evaluation. The largest absolute error in mean dose was about 3.6% of the prescription dose, and the largest absolute error in the maximum dose was about 2.0% of the prescription dose.

CONCLUSIONS

In this feasibility study, we have developed a 3D U-Net model with the patient's anatomy and the desired DVH curves as inputs to predict an individualized 3D dose distribution that is approximately Pareto optimal while having the DVH closest to the desired one. The predicted dose distributions can be used as references for dosimetrists and physicians to rapidly develop a clinically acceptable treatment plan.

Using deep learning to predict beam-tunable Pareto optimal dose distribution for intensity-modulated radiation therapy

PURPOSE

Many researchers have developed deep learning models for predicting clinical dose distributions and Pareto optimal dose distributions. Models for predicting Pareto optimal dose distributions have generated optimal plans in real time using anatomical structures and static beam orientations. However, Pareto optimal dose prediction for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) prostate planning with variable beam numbers and orientations has not yet been investigated. We propose to develop a deep learning model that can predict Pareto optimal dose distributions by using any given set of beam angles, along with patient anatomy, as input to train the deep neural networks. We implement and compare two deep learning networks that predict with two different beam configuration modalities.

METHODS

We generated Pareto optimal plans for 70 patients with prostate cancer. We used fluence map optimization to generate 500 IMRT plans that sampled the Pareto surface for each patient, for a total of 35 000 plans. We studied and compared two different models, Models I and II. Although they both used the same anatomical structures - including the planning target volume (PTV), organs at risk (OARs), and body - these models were designed with two different methods for representing beam angles. Model I directly uses beam angles as a second input to the network as a binary vector. Model II converts the beam angles into beam doses that are conformal to the PTV. We divided the 70 patients into 54 training, 6 validation, and 10 testing patients, thus yielding 27 000 training, 3000 validation, and 5000 testing plans. Mean square loss (MSE) was taken as the loss function. We used the Adam optimizer with a default learning rate of 0.01 to optimize the network's performance. We evaluated the models' performance by comparing their predicted dose distributions with the ground truth (Pareto optimal) dose distribution, in terms of dose volume histogram (DVH) plots and evaluation metrics such as PTV D98 , D95 , D50 , D2 , Dmax , Dmean , Paddick Conformation Number, R50, and Homogeneity index.

RESULTS

Our deep learning models predicted voxel-level dose distributions that precisely matched the ground truth dose distributions. The DVHs generated also precisely matched the ground truth. Evaluation metrics such as PTV statistics, dose conformity, dose spillage (R50), and homogeneity index also confirmed the accuracy of PTV curves on the DVH. Quantitatively, Model I's prediction error of 0.043 (confirmation), 0.043 (homogeneity), 0.327 (R50), 2.80% (D95), 3.90% (D98), 0.6% (D50), and 1.10% (D2) was lower than that of Model II, which obtained 0.076 (confirmation), 0.058 (homogeneity), 0.626 (R50), 7.10% (D95), 6.50% (D98), 8.40% (D50), and 6.30% (D2). Model I also outperformed Model II in terms of the mean dose error and the max dose error on the PTV, bladder, rectum, left femoral head, and right femoral head.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment planners who use our models will be able to use deep learning to control the trade-offs between the PTV and OAR weights, as well as the beam number and configurations in real time. Our dose prediction methods provide a stepping stone to building automatic IMRT treatment planning.

A fast deep learning approach for beam orientation optimization for prostate cancer treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy

PURPOSE

Beam orientation selection, whether manual or protocol-based, is the current clinical standard in radiation therapy treatment planning, but it is tedious and can yield suboptimal results. Many algorithms have been designed to optimize beam orientation selection because of its impact on treatment plan quality, but these algorithms suffer from slow calculation of the dose influence matrices of all candidate beams. We propose a fast beam orientation selection method, based on deep learning neural networks (DNN), capable of developing a plan comparable to those developed by the state-of-the-art column generation (CG) method. Our model's novelty lies in its supervised learning structure (using CG to teach the network), DNN architecture, and ability to learn from anatomical features to predict dosimetrically suitable beam orientations without using dosimetric information from the candidate beams. This may save hours of computation.

METHODS

A supervised DNN is trained to mimic the CG algorithm, which iteratively chooses beam orientations one-by-one by calculating beam fitness values based on Karush-Kush-Tucker optimality conditions at each iteration. The DNN learns to predict these values. The dataset contains 70 prostate cancer patients - 50 training, 7 validation, and 13 test patients - to develop and test the model. Each patient's data contains 6 contours: PTV, body, bladder, rectum, and left and right femoral heads. Column generation was implemented with a GPU-based Chambolle-Pock algorithm, a first-order primal-dual proximal-class algorithm, to create 6270 plans. The DNN trained over 400 epochs, each with 2500 steps and a batch size of 1, using the Adam optimizer at a learning rate of 1 × 10-5 and a sixfold cross-validation technique.

RESULTS

The average and standard deviation of training, validation, and testing loss functions among the six folds were 0.62 ± 0.09%, 1.04 ± 0.06%, and 1.44 ± 0.11%, respectively. Using CG and supervised DNN, we generated two sets of plans for each scenario in the test set. The proposed method took at most 1.5 s to select a set of five beam orientations and 300 s to calculate the dose influence matrices for 5 beams and finally 20 s to solve the fluence map optimization (FMO). However, CG needed around 15 h to calculate the dose influence matrices of all beams and at least 400 s to solve both the beam orientation selection and FMO problems. The differences in the dose coverage of PTV between plans generated by CG and by DNN were 0.2%. The average dose differences received by organs at risk were between 1 and 6 percent: Bladder had the smallest average difference in dose received (0.956 ± 1.184%), then Rectum (2.44 ± 2.11%), Left Femoral Head (6.03 ± 5.86%), and Right Femoral Head (5.885 ± 5.515%). The dose received by Body had an average difference of 0.10 ± 0.1% between the generated treatment plans.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a fast beam orientation selection method based on a DNN that selects beam orientations in seconds and is therefore suitable for clinical routines. In the training phase of the proposed method, the model learns the suitable beam orientations based on patients' anatomical features and omits time intensive calculations of dose influence matrices for all possible candidate beams. Solving the FMO to get the final treatment plan requires calculating dose influence matrices only for the selected beams.

Incorporating human and learned domain knowledge into training deep neural networks: A differentiable dose-volume histogram and adversarial inspired framework for generating Pareto optimal dose distributions in radiation therapy

PURPOSE

We propose a novel domain-specific loss, which is a differentiable loss function based on the dose-volume histogram (DVH), and combine it with an adversarial loss for the training of deep neural networks. In this study, we trained a neural network for generating Pareto optimal dose distributions, and evaluate the effects of the domain-specific loss on the model performance.

METHODS

In this study, three loss functions - mean squared error (MSE) loss, DVH loss, and adversarial (ADV) loss - were used to train and compare four instances of the neural network model: (a) MSE, (b) MSE + ADV, (c) MSE + DVH, and (d) MSE + DVH+ADV. The data for 70 prostate patients, including the planning target volume (PTV), and the organs at risk (OAR) were acquired as 96 × 96 × 24 dimension arrays at 5 mm3 voxel size. The dose influence arrays were calculated for 70 prostate patients, using a 7 equidistant coplanar beam setup. Using a scalarized multicriteria optimization for intensity-modulated radiation therapy, 1200 Pareto surface plans per patient were generated by pseudo-randomizing the PTV and OAR tradeoff weights. With 70 patients, the total number of plans generated was 84 000 plans. We divided the data into 54 training, 6 validation, and 10 testing patients. Each model was trained for a total of 100,000 iterations, with a batch size of 2. All models used the Adam optimizer, with a learning rate of 1 × 10-3 .

RESULTS

Training for 100 000 iterations took 1.5 days (MSE), 3.5 days (MSE+ADV), 2.3 days (MSE+DVH), and 3.8 days (MSE+DVH+ADV). After training, the prediction time of each model is 0.052 s. Quantitatively, the MSE+DVH+ADV model had the lowest prediction error of 0.038 (conformation), 0.026 (homogeneity), 0.298 (R50), 1.65% (D95), 2.14% (D98), and 2.43% (D99). The MSE model had the worst prediction error of 0.134 (conformation), 0.041 (homogeneity), 0.520 (R50), 3.91% (D95), 4.33% (D98), and 4.60% (D99). For both the mean dose PTV error and the max dose PTV, Body, Bladder and rectum error, the MSE+DVH+ADV outperformed all other models. Regardless of model, all predictions have an average mean and max dose error <2.8% and 4.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The MSE+DVH+ADV model performed the best in these categories, illustrating the importance of both human and learned domain knowledge. Expert human domain-specific knowledge can be the largest driver in the performance improvement, and adversarial learning can be used to further capture nuanced attributes in the data. The real-time prediction capabilities allow for a physician to quickly navigate the tradeoff space for a patient, and produce a dose distribution as a tangible endpoint for the dosimetrist to use for planning. This is expected to considerably reduce the treatment planning time, allowing for clinicians to focus their efforts on the difficult and demanding cases.

Effect of low magnetic field on single-diode dosimetry for clinical use

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of a low magnetic field (B-field, 0.35 T) on QED™ for clinical use.

METHODS

Black and Blue QED were irradiated using tri-Co-60 magnetic resonance image-guided radiation therapy systems with and without the B-field. For both detectors, angular dependence of the beam orientation was evaluated by rotating the gantry and detector in parallel and perpendicular directions to the B-field. Angular dependence betweenthe directions of both QED and B-field was also measured. Response on the depth and output factor of both detectors was investigated for parallel and perpendicular setups, respectively.

RESULTS

When Black QED was placed on a surface, detector response decreased by 1.8% and 4.5% for parallel and perpendicular setups, respectively, owing to the B-field. The angular dependence of the beam orientation was not affected by B-field for both detectors. There was a significant angular dependence between Black QED and B-field direction and for the Black QED when the gantry was rotated. Owing to the B-field, the detector response at 90° decreased by 2.4%, response of Black QED on the depth was changed only on the surface, and output factor of Black QED was changed only on the surface. The response of Blue QED was not affected by the B-field for all examined situations.

CONCLUSIONS

Using Black QED on a surface in the same position as that in the calibration requires some correction to the B-field. Blue QED does not require correction as it is not affected by the B-field.

A feasibility study for predicting optimal radiation therapy dose distributions of prostate cancer patients from patient anatomy using deep learning

With the advancement of treatment modalities in radiation therapy for cancer patients, outcomes have improved, but at the cost of increased treatment plan complexity and planning time. The accurate prediction of dose distributions would alleviate this issue by guiding clinical plan optimization to save time and maintain high quality plans. We have modified a convolutional deep network model, U-net (originally designed for segmentation purposes), for predicting dose from patient image contours of the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OAR). We show that, as an example, we are able to accurately predict the dose of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer patients, where the average Dice similarity coefficient is 0.91 when comparing the predicted vs. true isodose volumes between 0% and 100% of the prescription dose. The average value of the absolute differences in [max, mean] dose is found to be under 5% of the prescription dose, specifically for each structure is [1.80%, 1.03%](PTV), [1.94%, 4.22%](Bladder), [1.80%, 0.48%](Body), [3.87%, 1.79%](L Femoral Head), [5.07%, 2.55%](R Femoral Head), and [1.26%, 1.62%](Rectum) of the prescription dose. We thus managed to map a desired radiation dose distribution from a patient's PTV and OAR contours. As an additional advantage, relatively little data was used in the techniques and models described in this paper.

A Prospective 4π Radiation Therapy Clinical Study in Recurrent High-Grade Glioma Patients

PURPOSE

To evaluate the feasibility, safety, dosimetric benefits, delivery efficiency, and patient comfort in the clinical implementation of 4π radiation therapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Eleven patients with recurrent high-grade glioma were recruited for the trial. 4π plans integrating beam orientation and fluence-map optimization were created using an in-house column-generation algorithm. The collision-free beam solution space throughout the 4π steradian was determined using a computer-aided-design model of the Varian TrueBeam system and a human subject. Twenty beams were optimized for each case and imported into Eclipse for intensity modulated radiation therapy planning. Beam orientations with neighboring couch kicks were merged for increased delivery efficiency, generating plans with an average of 16 beam orientations. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans with 3-4 arcs were also generated for each case, and the plan achieving superior dosimetric quality was selected for treatment. Patient comfort was surveyed after every fraction. Multiple 2-dimensional X-ray images were obtained to measure intrafractional motion.

RESULTS

Of 11 patients, 9 were treated with 4π. Mean and maximum organ at risk doses were equal or significantly lower (P < .05) with 4π than with VMAT. Particularly substantial dose reduction of 2.92 Gy in the average accumulated brainstem maximum dose enabled treatments that would otherwise not satisfy safe dose constraints with VMAT. One patient was not treated because neither plan met the dosimetric criteria. The other was treated with VMAT owing to comparable dosimetry resulting from a planning target volume located in a separate co-plane superior to organs at risk. Treatments were well tolerated, with an average patient comfort score of 8.6/10. Intrafractional motion was <1.5 mm for all delivered fractions, and the average delivery time was 34.1 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

The feasibility, safety, dosimetric benefits, delivery efficiency, and patient comfort of 4π radiation therapy have been clinically demonstrated with a prospective clinical trial. The results elucidate the potential and challenges of wider clinical implementations.

4π plan optimization for cortical-sparing brain radiotherapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Incidental irradiation of normal brain tissue during radiotherapy is linked to cognitive decline, and may be mediated by damage to healthy cortex. Non-coplanar techniques may be used for cortical sparing. We compared normal brain sparing and probability of cortical atrophy using 4π radiation therapy planning vs. standard fixed gantry intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Plans from previously irradiated brain tumor patients ("original IMRT", n = 13) were re-planned to spare cortex using both 4π optimization ("4π") and IMRT optimization ("optimized IMRT"). Homogeneity index (HI), gradient measure, doses to cortex and white matter (excluding tumor), brainstem, optics, and hippocampus were compared with matching PTV coverage. Probability of three grades of post-treatment cortical atrophy was modeled based on previously established dose response curves.

RESULTS

With matching PTV coverage, 4π significantly improved HI by 27% (p = 0.005) and gradient measure by 8% (p = 0.001) compared with optimized IMRT. 4π optimization reduced mean and equivalent uniform doses (EUD) to all standard OARs, with 14-15% reduction in hippocampal EUD (p ≤ 0.003) compared with the other two plans. 4π significantly reduced dose to fractional cortical volumes (V50, V40 and V30) compared with the original IMRT plans, and reduced cortical V30 by 7% (p = 0.008) compared with optimized IMRT. White matter EUD, mean dose, and fractional volumes V50, V40 and V30 were also significantly lower with 4π (p ≤ 0.001). With 4π, probability of grade 1, 2 and 3 cortical atrophy decreased by 12%, 21% and 26% compared with original IMRT and by 8%, 14% and 3% compared with optimized IMRT, respectively (p ≤ 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

4π radiotherapy significantly improved cortical sparing and reduced doses to standard brain OARs, white matter, and the hippocampus. This was achieved with superior PTV dose homogeneity. Such sparing could reduce the probability of cortical atrophy that may lead to cognitive decline.

Integrated beam orientation and scanning-spot optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy for brain and unilateral head and neck tumors

PURPOSE

Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) is the state-of-the-art method of delivering proton radiotherapy. Previous research has been mainly focused on optimization of scanning spots with manually selected beam angles. Due to the computational complexity, the potential benefit of simultaneously optimizing beam orientations and spot pattern could not be realized. In this study, we developed a novel integrated beam orientation optimization (BOO) and scanning-spot optimization algorithm for intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT).

METHODS

A brain chordoma and three unilateral head-and-neck patients with a maximal target size of 112.49 cm³ were included in this study. A total number of 1162 noncoplanar candidate beams evenly distributed across 4π steradians were included in the optimization. For each candidate beam, the pencil-beam doses of all scanning spots covering the PTV and a margin were calculated. The beam angle selection and spot intensity optimization problem was formulated to include three terms: a dose fidelity term to penalize the deviation of PTV and OAR doses from ideal dose distribution; an L1-norm sparsity term to reduce the number of active spots and improve delivery efficiency; a group sparsity term to control the number of active beams between 2 and 4. For the group sparsity term, convex L2,1-norm and nonconvex L2,1/2-norm were tested. For the dose fidelity term, both quadratic function and linearized equivalent uniform dose (LEUD) cost function were implemented. The optimization problem was solved using the Fast Iterative Shrinkage-Thresholding Algorithm (FISTA). The IMPT BOO method was tested on three head-and-neck patients and one skull base chordoma patient. The results were compared with IMPT plans created using column generation selected beams or manually selected beams.

RESULTS

The L2,1-norm plan selected spatially aggregated beams, indicating potential degeneracy using this norm. L2,1/2-norm was able to select spatially separated beams and achieve smaller deviation from the ideal dose. In the L2,1/2-norm plans, the [mean dose, maximum dose] of OAR were reduced by an average of [2.38%, 4.24%] and[2.32%, 3.76%] of the prescription dose for the quadratic and LEUD cost function, respectively, compared with the IMPT plan using manual beam selection while maintaining the same PTV coverage. The L2,1/2 group sparsity plans were dosimetrically superior to the column generation plans as well. Besides beam orientation selection, spot sparsification was observed. Generally, with the quadratic cost function, 30%~60% spots in the selected beams remained active. With the LEUD cost function, the percentages of active spots were in the range of 35%~85%.The BOO-IMPT run time was approximately 20 min.

CONCLUSION

This work shows the first IMPT approach integrating noncoplanar BOO and scanning-spot optimization in a single mathematical framework. This method is computationally efficient, dosimetrically superior and produces delivery-friendly IMPT plans.

Deterministic direct aperture optimization using multiphase piecewise constant segmentation

PURPOSE

Direct aperture optimization (DAO) attempts to incorporate machine constraints in the inverse optimization to eliminate the post-processing steps in fluence map optimization (FMO) that degrade plan quality. Current commercial DAO methods utilize a stochastic or greedy approach to search a small aperture solution space. In this study, we propose a novel deterministic direct aperture optimization that integrates the segmentation of fluence map in the optimization problem using the multiphase piecewise constant Mumford-Shah formulation.

METHODS

The Mumford-Shah based direct aperture optimization problem was formulated to include an L2-norm dose fidelity term to penalize differences between the projected dose and the prescribed dose, an anisotropic total variation term to promote piecewise continuity in the fluence maps, and the multiphase piecewise constant Mumford-Shah function to partition the fluence into pairwise discrete segments. A proximal-class, first-order primal-dual solver was implemented to solve the large scale optimization problem, and an alternating module strategy was implemented to update fluence and delivery segments. Three patients of varying complexity-one glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) patient, one lung (LNG) patient, and one bilateral head and neck (H&N) patient with 3 PTVs-were selected to test the new DAO method. For each patient, 20 non-coplanar beams were first selected using column generation, followed by the Mumford-Shah based DAO (DAO_MS ). For comparison, a popular and successful approach to DAO known as simulated annealing-a stochastic approach-was replicated. The simulated annealing DAO (DAO_SA ) plans were then created using the same beam angles and maximum number of segments per beam. PTV coverage, PTV homogeneity D95D5, and OAR sparing were assessed for each plan. In addition, high dose spillage, defined as the 50% isodose volume divided by the tumor volume, as well as conformity, defined as the van't Riet conformation number, were evaluated.

RESULTS

DAO_MS achieved essentially the same OAR doses compared with the DAO_SA plans for the GBM case. The average difference of OAR D_max and D_mean between the two plans were within 0.05% of the plan prescription dose. The lung case showed slightly improved critical structure sparing using the DAO_MS approach, where the average OAR D_max and D_mean were reduced by 3.67% and 1.08%, respectively, of the prescription dose. The DAO_MS plan substantially improved OAR dose sparing for the H&N patient, where the average OAR D_max and D_mean were reduced by over 10% of the prescription dose. The DAO_MS and DAO_SA plans were comparable for the GBM and LNG PTV coverage, while the DAO_MS plan substantially improved the H&N PTV coverage, increasing D99 by 6.98% of the prescription dose. For the GBM and LNG patients, the DAO_MS and DAO_SA plans had comparable high dose spillage but slightly worse conformity with the DAO_MS approach. For the H&N plan, DAO_MS was considerably superior in high dose spillage and conformity to the DAO_SA . The deterministic approach is able to solve the DAO problem substantially faster than the simulated annealing approach, with a 9.5- to 40-fold decrease in total solve time, depending on the patient case.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel deterministic direct aperture optimization formulation was developed and evaluated. It combines fluence map optimization and the multiphase piecewise constant Mumford-Shah segmentation into a unified framework, and the resulting optimization problem can be solved efficiently. Compared to the widely and commercially used simulated annealing DAO approach, it showed comparable dosimetry behavior for simple plans, and substantially improved OAR sparing, PTV coverage, PTV homogeneity, high dose spillage, and conformity for the more complex head and neck plan.

Predicting liver SBRT eligibility and plan quality for VMAT and 4π plans

BACKGROUND

It is useful to predict planned dosimetry and determine the eligibility of a liver cancer patient for SBRT treatment using knowledge based planning (KBP). We compare the predictive accuracy using the overlap volume histogram (OVH) and statistical voxel dose learning (SVDL) KBP prediction models for coplanar VMAT to non-coplanar 4π radiotherapy plans.

METHODS

In this study, 21 liver SBRT cases were selected, which were initially treated using coplanar VMAT plans. They were then re-planned using 4π IMRT plans with 20 inversely optimized non-coplanar beams. OVH was calculated by expanding the planning target volume (PTV) and then plotting the percent overlap volume v with the liver vs. r _v , the expansion distance. SVDL calculated the distance to the PTV for all liver voxels and bins the voxels of the same distance. Their dose information is approximated by either taking the median or using a skew-normal or non-parametric fit, which was then applied to voxels of unknown dose for each patient in a leave-one-out test. The liver volume receiving less than 15 Gy (V_<15Gy), DVHs, and 3D dose distributions were predicted and compared between the prediction models and planning methods.

RESULTS

On average, V_<15Gy was predicted within 5%. SVDL was more accurate than OVH and able to predict DVH and 3D dose distributions. Median SVDL yielded predictive errors similar or lower than the fitting methods and is more computationally efficient. Prediction of the 4π dose was more accurate compared to VMAT for all prediction methods, with significant (p < 0.05) results except for OVH predicting liver V_<15Gy (p = 0.063).

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to evaluating plan quality, KBP is useful to automatically determine the patient eligibility for liver SBRT and quantify the dosimetric gains from non-coplanar 4π plans. The two here analyzed dose prediction methods performed more accurately for the 4π plans than VMAT.