Search

Purpose Radiation therapy treatment planning is a time-consuming and iterative manual process. Consequently, plan quality varies greatly between and within institutions. Artificial intelligence shows great promise in improving plan quality and reducing planning times. This technical note describes our participation in the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Open Knowledge-Based Planning Challenge (OpenKBP), a competition to accurately predict radiation therapy dose distributions. Methods A three-dimensional (3D) densely connected U-Net with dilated convolutions was developed to predict 3D dose distributions given contoured CT images of head and neck patients as input. While traditional augmentation techniques such as rotations and translations were explored, it was found that training on random patches alone resulted in the greatest model performance. A custom-weighted mean squared error loss function was employed. Finally, an ensemble of best-performing networks was used to generate the final challenge predictions. Results Our team (SuperPod) placed second in the dose stream of the OpenKBP challenge. The average mean absolute difference between the predicted and clinical dose distributions of the testing dataset was 2.56 Gy. On average, the predicted normalized target DVH metrics were within 3% of the clinical plans, and the predicted organ at risk DVH metrics were within 2 Gy of the clinical plans. Conclusions The developed 3D dense dilated U-Net architecture can accurately predict 3D radiotherapy dose distributions and can be used as part of a fully automated radiation therapy planning pipeline.

Careful delineation of normal-tissue organs-at-risk is essential for brain tumor radiotherapy. However, this process is time-consuming and subject to variability. In this work, we propose a multi-modality framework that automatically segments eleven structures. Large structures used for defining the clinical target volume (CTV), such as the cerebellum, are directly segmented from T1-weighted and T2-weighted MR images. Smaller structures used in radiotherapy plan optimization are more difficult to segment, thus, a region of interest is first identified and cropped by a classification model, and then these structures are segmented from the new volume. This bi-directional framework allows for rapid model segmentation and good performance on a standardized challenge dataset when evaluated with volumetric and surface metrics.

Purpose To develop a deep learning model that generates consistent, high-quality lymph node clinical target volumes (CTV) contours for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients, as an integral part of a fully automated radiation treatment planning workflow. Methods and Materials Computed tomography (CT) scans from 71 HNC patients were retrospectively collected and split into training (n = 51), cross-validation (n = 10), and test (n = 10) data sets. All had target volume delineations covering lymph node levels Ia through V (Ia-V), Ib through V (Ib-V), II through IV (II-IV), and retropharyngeal (RP) nodes, which were previously approved by a radiation oncologist specializing in HNC. Volumes of interest (VOIs) about nodal levels were automatically identified using computer vision techniques. The VOI (cropped CT image) and approved contours were used to train a U-Net autosegmentation model. Each lymph node level was trained independently, with model parameters optimized by assessing performance on the cross-validation data set. Once optimal model parameters were identified, overlap and distance metrics were calculated between ground truth and autosegmentations on the test set. Lastly, this final model was used on 32 additional patient scans (not included in original 71 cases) and autosegmentations visually rated by 3 radiation oncologists as being “clinically acceptable without requiring edits,” “requiring minor edits,” or “requiring major edits.” Results When comparing ground truths to autosegmentations on the test data set, median Dice Similarity Coefficients were 0.90, 0.90, 0.89, and 0.81, and median mean surface distance values were 1.0 mm, 1.0 mm, 1.1 mm, and 1.3 mm for node levels Ia-V, Ib-V, II-IV, and RP nodes, respectively. Qualitative scoring varied among physicians. Overall, 99% of autosegmented target volumes were either scored as being clinically acceptable or requiring minor edits (ie, stylistic recommendations, Conclusions We developed a fully automated artificial intelligence approach to autodelineate nodal CTVs for patients with intact HNC. Most autosegmentations were found to be clinically acceptable after qualitative review when considering recommended stylistic edits. This promising work automatically delineates nodal CTVs in a robust and consistent manner; this approach can be implemented in ongoing efforts for fully automated radiation treatment planning.

A large number of surveys have been sent to the medical physics community addressing many clinical topics for which the medical physicist is, or may be, responsible. Each survey provides an insight into clinical practice relevant to the medical physics community. The goal of this study was to create a summary of these surveys giving a snapshot of clinical practice patterns. Surveys used in this study were created using SurveyMonkey and distributed between February 6, 2013 and January 2, 2018 via the MEDPHYS and MEDDOS listserv groups. The format of the surveys included questions that were multiple choice and free response. Surveys were included in this analysis if they met the following criteria: more than 20 responses, relevant to radiation therapy physics practice, not single‐vendor specific, and formatted as multiple‐choice questions (i.e., not exclusively free‐text responses). Although the results of free response questions were not explicitly reported, they were carefully reviewed, and the responses were considered in the discussion of each topic. Two‐hundred and fifty‐two surveys were available, of which 139 passed the inclusion criteria. The mean number of questions per survey was 4. The mean number of respondents per survey was 63. Summaries were made for the following topics: simulation, treatment planning, electron treatments, linac commissioning and quality assurance, setup and treatment verification, IMRT and VMAT treatments, SRS/SBRT, breast treatments, prostate treatments, brachytherapy, TBI, facial lesion treatments, clinical workflow, and after‐hours/emergent treatments. We have provided a coherent overview of medical physics practice according to surveys conducted over the last 5 yr, which will be instructive for medical physicists.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the dosimetric impact of multi‐leaf collimator (MLC) positioning errors on a Varian Halcyon for both random and systematic errors, and to evaluate the effectiveness of portal dosimetry quality assurance in catching clinically significant changes caused by these errors. Both random and systematic errors were purposely added to 11 physician‐approved head and neck volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans, yielding a total of 99 unique plans. Plans were then delivered on a preclinical Varian Halcyon linear accelerator and the fluence was captured by an opposed portal dosimeter. When comparing dose–volume histogram (DVH) values of plans with introduced MLC errors to known good plans, clinically significant changes to target structures quickly emerged for plans with systematic errors, while random errors caused less change. For both error types, the magnitude of clinically significant changes increased as error size increased. Portal dosimetry was able to detect all systematic errors, while random errors of ±5 mm or less were unlikely to be detected. Best detection of clinically significant errors, while minimizing false positives, was achieved by following the recommendations of AAPM TG‐218. Furthermore, high‐ to moderate correlation was found between dose DVH metrics for normal tissues surrounding the target and portal dosimetry pass rates. Therefore, it may be concluded that portal dosimetry on the Halcyon is robust enough to detect errors in MLC positioning before they introduce clinically significant changes to VMAT treatment plans.

Purpose We conducted our study to develop a tool capable of automatically detecting dental artifacts in a CT scan on a slice-by-slice basis and to assess the dosimetric impact of implementing the tool into the Radiation Planning Assistant (RPA), a web-based platform designed to fully automate the radiation therapy treatment planning process. Methods We developed an automatic dental artifact identification tool and assessed the dosimetric impact of its use in the RPA. Three users manually annotated 83,676 head-and-neck (HN) CT slices (549 patients). Majority-voting was applied to the individual annotations to determine the presence or absence of dental artifacts. The patients were divided into train, cross-validation, and test data sets (ratio: 3:1:1, respectively). A random subset of images without dental artifacts was used to balance classes (1:1) in the training data set. The Inception-V3 deep learning model was trained with the binary cross-entropy loss function. With use of this model, we automatically identified artifacts on 15 RPA HN plans on a slice-by-slice basis and investigated three dental artifact management methods applied before and after volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan optimization. The resulting dose distributions and target coverage were quantified. Results Per-slice accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 99 %, 91 %, and 99 %, respectively. The model identified all patients with artifacts. Small dosimetric differences in total plan dose were observed between the various density-override methods (±1 Gy). For the pre- and post-optimized plans, 90 % and 99 %, respectively, of dose comparisons resulted in normal structure dose differences of ±1 Gy. Differences in the volume of structures receiving 95 % of the prescribed dose (V95[%]) were ≤0.25 % for 100 % of plans. Conclusion The dosimetric impact of applying dental artifact management before and after artifact plan optimization was minor. Our results suggest that not accounting for dental artifacts in the current RPA workflow (where only post-optimization dental artifact management is possible) may result in minor dosimetric differences. If RPA users choose to override CT densities as a solution to managing dental artifacts, our results suggest segmenting the volume of the artifact and overriding its density to water is a safe option.