Search

Background and Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the plan quality of our deep learning-based automated treatment planning method for robustly optimized intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans in patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC). The assessment was conducted through a retrospective and prospective study, blindly comparing manual plans with deep learning plans., Materials and Methods: A set of 95 OPC patients was split into training (n = 60), configuration (n = 10), test retrospective study (n = 10), and test prospective study (n = 15). Our deep learning optimization (DLO) method combines IMPT dose prediction using a deep learning model with a robust mimicking optimization algorithm. Dosimetrists manually adjusted the DLO plan for individual patients. In both studies, manual plans and manually adjusted deep learning (mDLO) plans were blindly assessed by a radiation oncologist, a dosimetrist, and a physicist, through visual inspection, clinical goal evaluation, and comparison of normal tissue complication probability values. mDLO plans were completed within an average time of 2.5 h. In comparison, the manual planning process typically took around 2 days., Results: In the retrospective study, in 10/10 (100%) patients, the mDLO plans were preferred, while in the prospective study, 9 out of 15 (60%) mDLO plans were preferred. In 4 out of the remaining 6 cases, the manual and mDLO plans were considered comparable in quality. Differences between manual and mDLO plans were limited., Conclusion: This study showed a high preference for mDLO plans over manual IMPT plans, with 92% of cases considering mDLO plans comparable or superior in quality for OPC patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate an automated treatment planning method for robustly optimized intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans for oropharyngeal carcinoma patients and to compare the results with manually optimized robust IMPT plans., Methods and Materials: An atlas regression forest-based machine learning (ML) model for dose prediction was trained on CT scans, contours, and dose distributions of robust IMPT plans of 88 oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) patients. The ML model was combined with a robust voxel and dose volume histogram-based dose mimicking optimization algorithm for 21 perturbed scenarios to generate a machine-deliverable plan from the predicted dose distribution. Machine learning optimization (MLO) configuration was performed using a cross-validation approach with 3 × 8 tuning patients and comprised of adjustments to the mimicking optimization, to generate higher-quality MLO plans. Independent testing of the MLO algorithm was performed with another 25 patients. Plan quality of clinical and MLO plans was evaluated by the clinical target volume (D98% voxel-wise minimum dose >94%), organ at risk (OAR) doses, and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) (sum (Σ) of grade-2 and grade-3 dysphagia and xerostomia)., Results: Adequate robust target coverage was achieved in 24/25 clinical plans and in 23/25 MLO plans in the primary clinical target volume (CTV). In the elective CTV, 22/25 clinical plans and 24/25 MLO plans passed the robust target coverage evaluation threshold. The MLO average Σgrade 2 and Σgrade 3 NTCPs were comparable to the clinical plans (Σgrade 2 NTCPs: clinical 47.5% vs MLO 48.4%, Σgrade 3 NTCPs: clinical 11.9% vs MLO 12.3%). Significant increases in OAR average doses in MLO plans were found in the pharynx constrictor muscles (163 cGy, P = .002) and cervical esophagus (265 cGy, P = .002). The MLO plans were created within 45 minutes., Conclusion: This study showed that automated MLO planning can generate robustly optimized MLO plans with quality comparable to clinical plans in OPC patients., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: In breast diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) protocol standardization, it is recently shown that no breast tumor tissue selection (BTTS) method outperformed the others. The purpose of this study is to analyze the feasibility of three fixed-size breast tumor tissue selection (BTTS) methods based on the reproducibility, accuracy and time-measurement in comparison to the largest oval and manual delineation in breast diffusion weighted imaging data., Methods: This study is performed with a consecutive dataset of 116 breast lesions (98 malignant) of at least 1.0 cm, scanned in accordance with the EUSOBI breast DWI working group recommendations. Reproducibility of the maximum size manual (BTTS1) and of the maximal size round/oval (BTTS2) methods were compared with three smaller fixed-size circular BTTS methods in the middle of each lesion (BTTS3, 0.12 cm3 volume) and at lowest apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) (BTTS4, 0.12 cm3; BTTS5, 0.24 cm3). Mean ADC values, intraclass-correlation-coefficients (ICCs), area under the curve (AUC) and measurement times (sec) of the 5 BTTS methods were assessed by two observers., Results: Excellent inter- and intra-observer agreement was found for any BTTS (with ICC 0.88-0.92 and 0.92-0.94, respectively). Significant difference in ADCmean between any pair of BTTS methods was shown (p = <0.001-0.009), except for BTTS2 vs. BTTS3 for observer 1 (p = 0.10). AUCs were comparable between BTTS methods, with highest AUC for BTTS2 (0.89-0.91) and lowest for BTTS4 (0.76-0.85). However, as an indicator of clinical feasibility, BTTS2-3 showed shortest measurement times (10-15 sec) compared to BTTS1, 4-5 (19-39 sec)., Conclusion: The performance of fixed-size BTTS methods, as a potential tool for clinical decision making, shows equal AUC but shorter ADC measurement time compared to manual or oval whole lesion measurements. The advantage of a fixed size BTTS method is the excellent reproducibility. A central fixed breast tumor tissue volume of 0.12 cm3 is the most feasible method for use in clinical practice., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.