Prescription Value-Based Automatic Optimization of Importance Factors in Inverse Planning

Multi-institutional evaluation of a Pareto navigation guided automated radiotherapy planning solution for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Current automated planning solutions are calibrated using trial and error or machine learning on historical datasets. Neither method allows for the intuitive exploration of differing trade-off options during calibration, which may aid in ensuring automated solutions align with clinical preference. Pareto navigation provides this functionality and offers a potential calibration alternative. The purpose of this study was to validate an automated radiotherapy planning solution with a novel multi-dimensional Pareto navigation calibration interface across two external institutions for prostate cancer.

METHODS

The implemented 'Pareto Guided Automated Planning' (PGAP) methodology was developed in RayStation using scripting and consisted of a Pareto navigation calibration interface built upon a 'Protocol Based Automatic Iterative Optimisation' planning framework. 30 previous patients were randomly selected by each institution (IA and IB), 10 for calibration and 20 for validation. Utilising the Pareto navigation interface automated protocols were calibrated to the institutions' clinical preferences. A single automated plan (VMATAuto) was generated for each validation patient with plan quality compared against the previously treated clinical plan (VMATClinical) both quantitatively, using a range of DVH metrics, and qualitatively through blind review at the external institution.

RESULTS

PGAP led to marked improvements across the majority of rectal dose metrics, with Dmean reduced by 3.7 Gy and 1.8 Gy for IA and IB respectively (p < 0.001). For bladder, results were mixed with low and intermediate dose metrics reduced for IB but increased for IA. Differences, whilst statistically significant (p < 0.05) were small and not considered clinically relevant. The reduction in rectum dose was not at the expense of PTV coverage (D98% was generally improved with VMATAuto), but was somewhat detrimental to PTV conformality. The prioritisation of rectum over conformality was however aligned with preferences expressed during calibration and was a key driver in both institutions demonstrating a clear preference towards VMATAuto, with 31/40 considered superior to VMATClinical upon blind review.

CONCLUSIONS

PGAP enabled intuitive adaptation of automated protocols to an institution's planning aims and yielded plans more congruent with the institution's clinical preference than the locally produced manual clinical plans.

Clinical implementation of deep learning-based automated left breast simultaneous integrated boost radiotherapy treatment planning

Background and purpose

Automation in radiotherapy treatment planning aims to improve both the quality and the efficiency of the process. The aim of this study was to report on a clinical implementation of a Deep Learning (DL) auto-planning model for left-sided breast cancer.

Materials and methods

The DL model was developed for left-sided breast simultaneous integrated boost treatments under deep-inspiration breath-hold. Eighty manual dose distributions were revised and used for training. Ten patients were used for model validation. The model was then used to design 17 clinical auto-plans. Manual and auto-plans were scored on a list of clinical goals for both targets and organs-at-risk (OARs). For validation, predicted and mimicked dose (PD and MD, respectively) percent error (PE) was calculated with respect to manual dose. Clinical and validation cohorts were compared in terms of MD only.

Results

Median values of both PD and MD validation plans fulfilled the evaluation criteria. PE was < 1% for targets for both PD and MD. PD was well aligned to manual dose while MD left lung mean dose was significantly less (median:5.1 Gy vs 6.1 Gy). The left-anterior-descending artery maximum dose was found out of requirements (median values:+5.9 Gy and + 2.9 Gy, for PD and MD respectively) in three validation cases, while it was reduced for clinical cases (median:-1.9 Gy). No other clinically significant differences were observed between clinical and validation cohorts.

Conclusion

Small OAR differences observed during the model validation were not found clinically relevant. The clinical implementation outcomes confirmed the robustness of the model.