Aaron Babier1, Justin J Boutilier1, Andrea L McNiven2,3, Timothy C Y Chan1,4. 1. Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, 5 King's College Road, Toronto, M5S 3G8, ON, Canada. 2. Radiation Medicine Program, UHN Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, 610 University of Avenue, Toronto, M5T 2M9, ON, Canada. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, 148 - 150 College Street, Toronto, M5S 3S2, ON, Canada. 4. Techna Institute for the Advancement of Technology for Health, 124 - 100 College Street, Toronto, M5G 1L5, ON, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to automatically generate radiation therapy plans for oropharynx patients by combining knowledge-based planning (KBP) predictions with an inverse optimization (IO) pipeline. METHODS: We developed two KBP approaches, the bagging query (BQ) method and the generalized principal component analysis-based (gPCA) method, to predict achievable dose-volume histograms (DVHs). These approaches generalize existing methods by predicting physically feasible organ-at-risk (OAR) and target DVHs in sites with multiple targets. Using leave-one-out cross validation, we applied both models to a large dataset of 217 oropharynx patients. The predicted DVHs were input into an IO pipeline that generated treatment plans (BQ and gPCA plans) via an intermediate step that estimated objective function weights for an inverse planning model. The KBP predictions were compared to the clinical DVHs for benchmarking. To assess the complete pipeline, we compared the BQ and gPCA plans to both the predictions and clinical plans. To isolate the effect of the KBP predictions, we put clinical DVHs through the IO pipeline to produce clinical inverse optimized (CIO) plans. This approach also allowed us to estimate the complexity of the clinical plans. The BQ and gPCA plans were benchmarked against the CIO plans using DVH differences and clinical planning criteria. Iso-complexity plans (relative to CIO) were also generated and evaluated. RESULTS: The BQ method tended to predict that less dose is delivered than what was observed in the clinical plans while the gPCA predictions were more similar to clinical DVHs. Both populations of KBP predictions were reproduced with inverse plans to within a median DVH difference of 3 Gy. Clinical planning criteria for OARs were satisfied most frequently by the BQ plans (74.4%), by 6.3% points more than the clinical plans. Meanwhile, target criteria were satisfied most frequently by the gPCA plans (90.2%), and by 21.2% points more than clinical plans. However, once the complexity of the plans was constrained to that of the CIO plans, the performance of the BQ plans degraded significantly. In contrast, the gPCA plans still satisfied more clinical criteria than both the clinical and CIO plans, with the most notable improvement being in target criteria. CONCLUSION: Our automated pipeline can successfully use DVH predictions to generate high-quality plans without human intervention. Between the two KBP methods, gPCA plans tend to achieve comparable performance as clinical plans, even when controlling for plan complexity, whereas BQ plans tended to underperform.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to automatically generate radiation therapy plans for oropharynx patients by combining knowledge-based planning (KBP) predictions with an inverse optimization (IO) pipeline. METHODS: We developed two KBP approaches, the bagging query (BQ) method and the generalized principal component analysis-based (gPCA) method, to predict achievable dose-volume histograms (DVHs). These approaches generalize existing methods by predicting physically feasible organ-at-risk (OAR) and target DVHs in sites with multiple targets. Using leave-one-out cross validation, we applied both models to a large dataset of 217 oropharynx patients. The predicted DVHs were input into an IO pipeline that generated treatment plans (BQ and gPCA plans) via an intermediate step that estimated objective function weights for an inverse planning model. The KBP predictions were compared to the clinical DVHs for benchmarking. To assess the complete pipeline, we compared the BQ and gPCA plans to both the predictions and clinical plans. To isolate the effect of the KBP predictions, we put clinical DVHs through the IO pipeline to produce clinical inverse optimized (CIO) plans. This approach also allowed us to estimate the complexity of the clinical plans. The BQ and gPCA plans were benchmarked against the CIO plans using DVH differences and clinical planning criteria. Iso-complexity plans (relative to CIO) were also generated and evaluated. RESULTS: The BQ method tended to predict that less dose is delivered than what was observed in the clinical plans while the gPCA predictions were more similar to clinical DVHs. Both populations of KBP predictions were reproduced with inverse plans to within a median DVH difference of 3 Gy. Clinical planning criteria for OARs were satisfied most frequently by the BQ plans (74.4%), by 6.3% points more than the clinical plans. Meanwhile, target criteria were satisfied most frequently by the gPCA plans (90.2%), and by 21.2% points more than clinical plans. However, once the complexity of the plans was constrained to that of the CIO plans, the performance of the BQ plans degraded significantly. In contrast, the gPCA plans still satisfied more clinical criteria than both the clinical and CIO plans, with the most notable improvement being in target criteria. CONCLUSION: Our automated pipeline can successfully use DVH predictions to generate high-quality plans without human intervention. Between the two KBP methods, gPCA plans tend to achieve comparable performance as clinical plans, even when controlling for plan complexity, whereas BQ plans tended to underperform.
Authors: Chenyang Shen; Yesenia Gonzalez; Peter Klages; Nan Qin; Hyunuk Jung; Liyuan Chen; Dan Nguyen; Steve B Jiang; Xun Jia Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Yabo Fu; Hao Zhang; Eric D Morris; Carri K Glide-Hurst; Suraj Pai; Alberto Traverso; Leonard Wee; Ibrahim Hadzic; Per-Ivar Lønne; Chenyang Shen; Tian Liu; Xiaofeng Yang Journal: IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci Date: 2021-08-24
Authors: Mary Coffey; Michelle Leech; Harald Hentschel; Ingrid Kristensen; Annette Boejen; Philipp Scherer Journal: Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-07-22