Large-scale dose evaluation of deep learning organ contours in head-and-neck radiotherapy by leveraging existing plans.

Background and purpose: Retrospective dose evaluation for organ-at-risk auto-contours has previously used small cohorts due to additional manual effort required for treatment planning on auto-contours. We aimed to do this at large scale, by a) proposing and assessing an automated plan optimization workflow that used existing clinical plan parameters and b) using it for head-and-neck auto-contour dose evaluation. Materials and methods: Our automated workflow emulated our clinic's treatment planning protocol and reused existing clinical plan optimization parameters. This workflow recreated the original clinical plan (POG) with manual contours (PMC) and evaluated the dose effect (POG-PMC) on 70 photon and 30 proton plans of head-and-neck patients. As a use-case, the same workflow (and parameters) created a plan using auto-contours (PAC) of eight head-and-neck organs-at-risk from a commercial tool and evaluated their dose effect (PMC-PAC). Results: For plan recreation (POG-PMC), our workflow had a median impact of 1.0% and 1.5% across dose metrics of auto-contours, for photon and proton respectively. Computer time of automated planning was 25% (photon) and 42% (proton) of manual planning time. For auto-contour evaluation (PMC-PAC), we noticed an impact of 2.0% and 2.6% for photon and proton radiotherapy. All evaluations had a median ΔNTCP (Normal Tissue Complication Probability) less than 0.3%. Conclusions: The plan replication capability of our automated program provides a blueprint for other clinics to perform auto-contour dose evaluation with large patient cohorts. Finally, despite geometric differences, auto-contours had a minimal median dose impact, hence inspiring confidence in their utility and facilitating their clinical adoption.

Validation of Fully Automated Robust Multicriterial Treatment Planning for Head and Neck Cancer IMPT.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to compare robust intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans, automatically generated with wish-list-based multicriterial optimization as implemented in Erasmus-iCycle, with manually created robust clinical IMPT plans for patients with head and neck cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-three patients with head and neck cancer were retrospectively included. All patients were previously treated with a manually created IMPT plan with 7000 cGy dose prescription to the primary tumor (clinical target volume [CTV]7000) and 5425 cGy dose prescription to the bilateral elective volumes (CTV5425). Plans had a 4-beam field configuration and were generated with scenario-based robust optimization (21 scenarios, 3-mm setup error, and ±3% density uncertainty for the CTVs). Three clinical plans were used to configure the Erasmus-iCycle wish-list for automated generation of robust IMPT plans for the other 30 included patients, in line with clinical planning requirements. Automatically and manually generated IMPT plans were compared for (robust) target coverage, organ-at-risk (OAR) doses, and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP). No manual fine-tuning of automatically generated plans was performed. RESULTS: For all automatically generated plans, voxel-wise minimum D98% values for the CTVs were within clinical constraints and similar to manual plans. All investigated OAR parameters were favorable in the automatically generated plans (all P < .001). Median reductions in mean dose to OARs went up to 667 cGy for the inferior pharyngeal constrictor muscle, and median reductions in D0.03cm3 in serial OARs ranged up to 1795 cGy for the spinal cord surface. The observed lower mean dose in parallel OARs resulted in statistically significant lower NTCP for xerostomia (grade ≥2: 34.4% vs 38.0%; grade ≥3: 9.0% vs 10.2%) and dysphagia (grade ≥2: 11.8% vs 15.0%; grade ≥3: 1.8% vs 2.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Erasmus-iCycle was able to produce IMPT dose distributions fully automatically with similar (robust) target coverage and improved OAR doses and NTCPs compared with clinical manual planning, with negligible hands-on planning workload.

Dosimetric impact of adaptive proton therapy in head and neck cancer - A review.

Background: Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) in head and neck cancer (HNC) is susceptible to anatomical changes and patient set-up inaccuracies during the radiotherapy course, which can cause discrepancies between planned and delivered dose. The discrepancies can be counteracted by adaptive replanning strategies. This article reviews the observed dosimetric impact of adaptive proton therapy (APT) and the timing to perform a plan adaptation in IMPT in HNC. Methods: A literature search of articles published in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science from January 2010 to March 2022 was performed. Among a total of 59 records assessed for possible eligibility, ten articles were included in this review. Results: Included studies reported on target coverage deterioration in IMPT plans during the RT course, which was recovered with the application of an APT approach. All APT plans showed an average improved target coverage for the high- and low-dose targets as compared to the accumulated dose on the planned plans. Dose improvements up to 2.5 Gy (3.5 %) and up to 4.0 Gy (7.1 %) in the D98 of the high- and low dose targets were observed with APT. Doses to the organs at risk (OARs) remained equal or decreased slightly after APT was applied. In the included studies, APT was largely performed once, which resulted in the largest target coverage improvement, but eventual additional APT improved the target coverage further. There is no data showing what is the most appropriate timing for APT. Conclusion: APT during IMPT for HNC patients improves target coverage. The largest improvement in target coverage was found with a single adaptive intervention, and an eventual second or more frequent APT application improved the target coverage further. Doses to the OARs remained equal or decreased slightly after applying APT. The most optimal timing for APT is yet to be determined.

Automated Robust Planning for IMPT in Oropharyngeal Cancer Patients Using Machine Learning.

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.