Jiahan Zhang1, Yaorong Ge2, Yang Sheng1, Chunhao Wang1, Jiang Zhang3, Yuan Wu4, Qiuwen Wu1, Fang-Fang Yin1, Q Jackie Wu5. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 2. College of Computing and Informatics, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, North Carolina. 3. Medical Physics Graduate Program, Duke Kunshan University, Kunshan, Jiangsu, China. 4. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: jackie.wu@duke.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop a tradeoff hyperplane model to facilitate tradeoff decision-making before inverse planning. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We propose a model-based approach to determine the tradeoff hyperplanes that allow physicians to navigate the clinically viable space of plans with best achievable dose-volume parameters before planning. For a given case, a case reference set (CRS) is selected using a novel anatomic similarity metric from a large reference plan pool. Then, a regression model is built on the CRS to estimate the expected dose-volume histograms (DVHs) for the current case. This model also predicts the DVHs for all CRS cases and captures the variation from the corresponding DVHs in the clinical plans. Finally, these DVH variations are analyzed using the principal component analysis to determine the tradeoff hyperplane for the current case. To evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed approach, 244 head and neck cases were randomly partitioned into reference (214) and validation (30) sets. A tradeoff hyperplane was built for each validation case and evenly sampled for 12 tradeoff predictions. Each prediction yielded a tradeoff plan. The root-mean-square errors of the predicted and the realized plan DVHs were computed for prediction achievability evaluation. RESULTS: The tradeoff hyperplane with 3 principal directions accounts for 57.8% ± 3.6% of variations in the validation cases, suggesting the hyperplanes capture a significant portion of the clinical tradeoff space. The average root-mean-square errors in 3 tradeoff directions are 5.23 ± 2.46, 5.20 ± 2.52, and 5.19 ± 2.49, compared with 4.96 ± 2.48 of the knowledge-based planning predictions, indicating that the tradeoff predictions are comparably achievable. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically relevant tradeoffs can be effectively extracted from existing plans and characterized by a tradeoff hyperplane model. The hyperplane allows physicians and planners to explore the best clinically achievable plans with different organ-at-risk sparing goals before inverse planning and is a natural extension of the current knowledge-based planning framework.
PURPOSE: To develop a tradeoff hyperplane model to facilitate tradeoff decision-making before inverse planning. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We propose a model-based approach to determine the tradeoff hyperplanes that allow physicians to navigate the clinically viable space of plans with best achievable dose-volume parameters before planning. For a given case, a case reference set (CRS) is selected using a novel anatomic similarity metric from a large reference plan pool. Then, a regression model is built on the CRS to estimate the expected dose-volume histograms (DVHs) for the current case. This model also predicts the DVHs for all CRS cases and captures the variation from the corresponding DVHs in the clinical plans. Finally, these DVH variations are analyzed using the principal component analysis to determine the tradeoff hyperplane for the current case. To evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed approach, 244 head and neck cases were randomly partitioned into reference (214) and validation (30) sets. A tradeoff hyperplane was built for each validation case and evenly sampled for 12 tradeoff predictions. Each prediction yielded a tradeoff plan. The root-mean-square errors of the predicted and the realized plan DVHs were computed for prediction achievability evaluation. RESULTS: The tradeoff hyperplane with 3 principal directions accounts for 57.8% ± 3.6% of variations in the validation cases, suggesting the hyperplanes capture a significant portion of the clinical tradeoff space. The average root-mean-square errors in 3 tradeoff directions are 5.23 ± 2.46, 5.20 ± 2.52, and 5.19 ± 2.49, compared with 4.96 ± 2.48 of the knowledge-based planning predictions, indicating that the tradeoff predictions are comparably achievable. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically relevant tradeoffs can be effectively extracted from existing plans and characterized by a tradeoff hyperplane model. The hyperplane allows physicians and planners to explore the best clinically achievable plans with different organ-at-risk sparing goals before inverse planning and is a natural extension of the current knowledge-based planning framework.
Authors: Amy T Y Chang; Albert W M Hung; Fion W K Cheung; Michael C H Lee; Oscar S H Chan; Helen Philips; Yung-Tang Cheng; Wai-Tong Ng Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Binbin Wu; Francesco Ricchetti; Giuseppe Sanguineti; Michael Kazhdan; Patricio Simari; Robert Jacques; Russell Taylor; Todd McNutt Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-08-26 Impact factor: 7.038