Search

Realizing the potential of user‐developed automation software interacting with a treatment planning system (TPS) requires rigorous testing to ensure patient safety and data integrity. We developed an automated test platform to allow comparison of the treatment planning database before and after the execution of a write‐enabled script interacting with a commercial TPS (Eclipse, Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) using the vendor‐provided Eclipse Scripting Application Programming Interface (ESAPI). The C#‐application known as Write‐Enable Script Testing Engine (WESTE) serializes the treatment planning objects (Patient, Structure Set, PlanSetup) accessible through ESAPI, and then compares the serialization acquired before and after the execution of the script being tested, documenting identified differences to highlight the changes made to the treatment planning data. The first two uses of WESTE demonstrated that the testing platform could acquire and analyze the data quickly (<4 s per test case) and facilitate the clinical implementation of write‐enabled scripts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The objective of this work was to develop a comprehensive knowledge-based methodology for predicting achievable dose-volume histograms (DVHs) and highly precise DVH-based quality metrics (QMs) in stereotactic radiosurgery/radiotherapy (SRS/SRT) plans. Accurate QM estimation can identify suboptimal treatment plans and provide target optimization objectives to standardize and improve treatment planning Methods: Correlating observed dose as it relates to the geometric relationship of organs-at-risk (OARs) to planning target volumes (PTVs) yields mathematical models to predict achievable DVHs. In SRS, DVH-based QMs such as brain V10Gy (volume receiving 10 Gy or more), gradient measure (GM), and conformity index (CI) are used to evaluate plan quality. This study encompasses 223 linear accelerator-based SRS/SRT treatment plans (SRS plans) using volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), representing 95% of the institution's VMAT radiosurgery load from the past four and a half years. Unfiltered models that use all available plans for the model training were built for each category with a stratification scheme based on target and OAR characteristics determined emergently through initial modeling process. Model predictive accuracy is measured by the mean and standard deviation of the difference between clinical and predicted QMs, δQM = QMclin - QMpred, and a coefficient of determination, R². For categories with a large number of plans, refined models are constructed by automatic elimination of suspected suboptimal plans from the training set. Using the refined model as a presumed achievable standard, potentially suboptimal plans are identified. Predictions of QM improvement are validated via standardized replanning of 20 suspected suboptimal plans based on dosimetric predictions. The significance of the QM improvement is evaluated using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Results: The most accurate predictions are obtained when plans are stratified based on proximity to OARs and their PTV volume sizes. Volumes are categorized into small (VPTV < 2 cm³), medium (2 cm³ < VPTV < 25 cm³), and large (25 cm³ < VPTV). The unfiltered models demonstrate the ability to predict GMs to ~ 1 mm and fractional brain V10Gy to ~ 25% for plans with large VPTV and critical OAR involvements. Increased accuracy and precision of QM predictions are obtained when high quality plans are selected for the model training. For the small and medium VPTV plans without critical OAR involvement, predictive ability was evaluated using the refined model. For training plans, the model predicted GM to an accuracy of 0.2 ± 0.3 mm and fractional brain V10Gy to 0.04 ± 0.12, suggesting highly accurate predictive ability. For excluded plans, the average δGM was 1.1 mm and fractional brain V10Gy was 0.20. These δQM are significantly greater than those of the model training plans (p < 0.001). For CI, predictions are close to clinical values and no significant difference was observed between the training and excluded plans (p = 0.19). Twenty outliers with δGM > 1.35 mm were identified as potentially suboptimal, and replanning these cases using predicted target objectives demonstrates significant improvements on QMs: on average, 1.1 mm reduction in GM (p < 0.001) and 23% reduction in brain V10Gy (p < 0.001). After replanning, the difference of δGM distribution between the 20 replans and the refined model training plans was marginal. Conclusions: The results demonstrate the ability to predict SRS QMs precisely and to identify suboptimal plans. Furthermore, the knowledge-based DVH predictions were directly used as target optimization objectives and allowed a standardized planning process that bettered the clinically approved plans. Full clinical application of this methodology can improve consistency of SRS plan quality in a wide range of PTV volume and proximity to OARs and facilitate automated treatment planning for this critical treatment site. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]