Predicting dose-volume histograms for organs-at-risk in IMRT planning.

PURPOSE The objective of this work was to develop a quality control (QC) tool to reduce intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) planning variability and improve treatment plan quality using mathematical models that predict achievable organ-at-risk (OAR) dose-volume histograms (DVHs) based on individual patient anatomy. METHODS A mathematical framework to predict achievable OAR DVHs was derived based on the correlation of expected dose to the minimum distance from a voxel to the PTV surface. OAR voxels sharing a range of minimum distances were computed as subvolumes. A three-parameter, skew-normal probability distribution was used to fit subvolume dose distributions, and DVH prediction models were developed by fitting the evolution of the skew-normal parameters as a function of distance with polynomials. Cohorts of 20 prostate and 24 head-and-neck IMRT plans with identical clinical objectives were used to train organ-specific average models for rectum, bladder, and parotids. A sum of residuals analysis quantifying the integrated difference between the clinically approved DVH and predicted DVH evaluated similarity between DVHs. The ability of the average models to prospectively predict DVHs was evaluated on an independent validation cohort of 20 prostate plans. Statistical comparison of the sums of residuals between training and validation cohorts quantified the accuracy of the average model. Restricted sums of residuals (RSR) were used to identify potential outliers, where large values of RSR indicate a clinical DVH that exceeds the predicted DVH by a considerable amount. A refined model was obtained for each organ by excluding outliers with large RSR values from the training cohort. The refined model was applied to the original training cohort and restricted sums of residuals were utilized to estimate potential DVH improvements. All cases were replanned and evaluated by the physician that approved the original plan. The ability of the refined models to correctly identify outliers was assessed using the residual sum between the original and replanned DVHs to quantify dosimetric gains realized under replanning. RESULTS Statistical analysis of average sum of residuals for rectum (SR(rectum)=0.003±0.037), bladder (SR(bladder)=-0.008±0.037), and parotid (SR(parotid)=-0.003±0.060) training cohorts yielded mean values near zero and small with respect to the standard deviations, indicating that the average models are capturing the essential behavior of the training cohorts. The predictive abilities of the average rectum and bladder models were statistically indistinguishable between the training and validation sets, with SR(rectum)=0.002±0.044 and SR(bladder)=-0.018±0.058 for the validation set. The refined models' ability to detect outliers and predict achievable OAR DVHs was demonstrated by a strong correlation between predicted gains (RSR) and realized gains after replanning with sample correlation coefficients of r = 0.92 for the rectum, r = 0.88 for the bladder, and r = 0.84 for the parotid glands. CONCLUSIONS The results demonstrate that our mathematical framework and modest training cohorts successfully predict achievable OAR DVHs based on individual patient anatomy. The models correctly identified suboptimal plans that demonstrated further OAR sparing after replanning. This modeling technique requires no manual intervention except for appropriate selection of a training set with identical evaluation criteria. Clinical implementation is in progress to evaluate impact on real-time IMRT QC.

[1]  Fang-Fang Yin,et al.  A planning quality evaluation tool for prostate adaptive IMRT based on machine learning. , 2011, Medical physics.

[2]  Russell H. Taylor,et al.  Patient geometry-driven information retrieval for IMRT treatment plan quality control. , 2009, Medical physics.

[3]  Steve Webb,et al.  Single-Arc IMRT? , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[4]  D. Low,et al.  Experience-based quality control of clinical intensity-modulated radiotherapy planning. , 2011, International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics.

[5]  A. Niemierko,et al.  Modeling of normal tissue response to radiation: the critical volume model. , 1993, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[6]  C. Lemanski,et al.  Plan comparison of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (RapidArc) and conventional intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in anal canal cancer , 2010, Radiation oncology.

[7]  A. Nichol,et al.  Coplanar versus noncoplanar intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment planning for fronto‐temporal high‐grade glioma† , 2012, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[8]  Suresh Senan,et al.  Volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy vs. conventional IMRT in head-and-neck cancer: a comparative planning and dosimetric study. , 2009, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[9]  Günter Rote,et al.  Computing the Minimum Hausdorff Distance Between Two Point Sets on a Line Under Translation , 1991, Inf. Process. Lett..

[10]  A. Niemierko Reporting and analyzing dose distributions: a concept of equivalent uniform dose. , 1997, Medical physics.

[11]  Karl Otto,et al.  Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc. , 2007, Medical physics.

[12]  S. Webb Optimizing the planning of intensity-modulated radiotherapy. , 1994, Physics in medicine and biology.

[13]  F. Lohr,et al.  Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) vs. serial tomotherapy, step-and-shoot IMRT and 3D-conformal RT for treatment of prostate cancer. , 2009, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[14]  Joseph O Deasy,et al.  Quantitative Analyses of Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (QUANTEC): an introduction to the scientific issues. , 2010, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[15]  Patricio Simari,et al.  Comment on "A planning quality evaluation tool for prostate adaptive IMRT based on machine learning" [Med. Phys. 38, 719 (2011)]. , 2011, Medical physics.

[16]  Andrew Jackson,et al.  Geometric factors influencing dosimetric sparing of the parotid glands using IMRT. , 2006, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[17]  T. Bortfeld IMRT: a review and preview , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.