Knowledge-based prediction of three-dimensional dose distributions for external beam radiotherapy.

PURPOSE To demonstrate knowledge-based 3D dose prediction for external beam radiotherapy. METHODS Using previously treated plans as training data, an artificial neural network (ANN) was trained to predict a dose matrix based on patient-specific geometric and planning parameters, such as the closest distance (r) to planning target volume (PTV) and organ-at-risks (OARs). Twenty-three prostate and 43 stereotactic radiosurgery/radiotherapy (SRS/SRT) cases with at least one nearby OAR were studied. All were planned with volumetric-modulated arc therapy to prescription doses of 81 Gy for prostate and 12-30 Gy for SRS. Using these clinically approved plans, ANNs were trained to predict dose matrix and the predictive accuracy was evaluated using the dose difference between the clinical plan and prediction, δD = Dclin - Dpred. The mean (〈δDr〉), standard deviation (σδDr ), and their interquartile range (IQR) for the training plans were evaluated at a 2-3 mm interval from the PTV boundary (rPTV) to assess prediction bias and precision. Initially, unfiltered models which were trained using all plans in the cohorts were created for each treatment site. The models predict approximately the average quality of OAR sparing. Emphasizing a subset of plans that exhibited superior to the average OAR sparing during training, refined models were created to predict high-quality rectum sparing for prostate and brainstem sparing for SRS. Using the refined model, potentially suboptimal plans were identified where the model predicted further sparing of the OARs was achievable. Replans were performed to test if the OAR sparing could be improved as predicted by the model. RESULTS The refined models demonstrated highly accurate dose distribution prediction. For prostate cases, the average prediction bias for all voxels irrespective of organ delineation ranged from -1% to 0% with maximum IQR of 3% over rPTV ∈ [ - 6, 30] mm. The average prediction error was less than 10% for the same rPTV range. For SRS cases, the average prediction bias ranged from -0.7% to 1.5% with maximum IQR of 5% over rPTV ∈ [ - 4, 32] mm. The average prediction error was less than 8%. Four potentially suboptimal plans were identified for each site and subsequent replanning demonstrated improved sparing of rectum and brainstem. CONCLUSIONS The study demonstrates highly accurate knowledge-based 3D dose predictions for radiotherapy plans.

[1]  Binbin Wu,et al.  Improved robotic stereotactic body radiation therapy plan quality and planning efficacy for organ-confined prostate cancer utilizing overlap-volume histogram-driven planning methodology. , 2014, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[2]  Eugene Wong,et al.  Automated IMRT planning with regional optimization using planning scripts , 2013, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[3]  J. Deasy,et al.  Radiation dose-volume effects in radiation-induced rectal injury. , 2010, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[4]  Wei Chen,et al.  Multicriteria VMAT optimization. , 2011, Medical physics.

[5]  Russell H. Taylor,et al.  Data-driven approach to generating achievable dose-volume histogram objectives in intensity-modulated radiotherapy planning. , 2011, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

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

[7]  Steve B. Jiang,et al.  Ultrafast treatment plan optimization for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). , 2010, Medical physics.

[8]  Leyuan Shi,et al.  A two-stage approach for VMAT treatment plan optimization , 2013, 2013 IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE).

[9]  James Wheeler,et al.  Variation in external beam treatment plan quality: An inter-institutional study of planners and planning systems. , 2012, Practical radiation oncology.

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

[11]  Steve B. Jiang,et al.  A new column-generation-based algorithm for VMAT treatment plan optimization , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[12]  Y. Ge,et al.  Quantitative analysis of the factors which affect the interpatient organ-at-risk dose sparing variation in IMRT plans. , 2012, Medical physics.

[13]  M. Yano,et al.  Factors predictive of tumor recurrence and survival after initial complete response of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma to definitive chemoradiotherapy. , 2010, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[14]  Steve B. Jiang,et al.  Ultrafast treatment plan optimization for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) , 2010, 1005.4396.

[15]  Sasa Mutic,et al.  Predicting dose-volume histograms for organs-at-risk in IMRT planning. , 2012, Medical physics.

[16]  Patricio Simari,et al.  Fully automated simultaneous integrated boosted-intensity modulated radiation therapy treatment planning is feasible for head-and-neck cancer: a prospective clinical study. , 2012, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[17]  Jun Tan,et al.  Knowledge-based prediction of plan quality metrics in intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery. , 2015, Medical physics.

[18]  B. Lippitz,et al.  A simple dose gradient measurement tool to complement the conformity index. , 2006, Journal of neurosurgery.

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

[20]  Sasa Mutic,et al.  Quantifying Unnecessary Normal Tissue Complication Risks due to Suboptimal Planning: A Secondary Study of RTOG 0126. , 2015, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[21]  Dávid Papp,et al.  Direct leaf trajectory optimization for volumetric modulated arc therapy planning with sliding window delivery. , 2013, Medical physics.