Lexicographic optimization-based planning for stereotactic radiosurgery of brain metastases.

AIM: To validate a fully-automated lexicographic optimization-planning system (mCycle, Elekta) for single-(SL) and multiple-(ML, up to 4 metastases) lesions in intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS, 21 Gy, single fraction). METHODS: A pre-determined priority list, Wish-List (WL), represents a dialogue between planner and clinician, establishing strict constraints and pursuing objectives. In order to satisfy the clinical protocol without manual intervention, four patients were required to tweak and fine-tune each WL (SLp, MLp) for coplanar arcs. Thirty-five testing plans (20 SLp, 15 MLp) were automatically re-planned (mCP). Automatic and manual plans were compared including dose constraints, conformality, modulation complexity score (MCS), delivery time, and local gamma analysis (2%/2 mm). To ensure plan clinical acceptability, two radiation oncologists conducted an independent blind plan choice. RESULTS: Each WL-tuning took 3 days. Estimated median manual plans and mCP calculation time were 8 and 3 h, respectively. Significant increases in SLp and MLp target coverage and conformity were registered. mCP showed a not significant and clinically acceptable higher median brain V12Gy. SLp registered a -5.8% MU decrease with comparable median delivery time (MP 2.0 min, mCP 1.9 min) while MLp showed a +9.8% MU increase and longer delivery time (MP 3.5 min, mCP 4.4 min). mCP MCS resulted significantly higher without affecting gamma passing rates. At blind choice, mCP were preferred in the majority of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Lexicographic optimization produced acceptable SRS plans with coplanar arcs significantly reducing the overall planning time in cases with up to 4 brain metastases. These planning improvements suggest further investigations by setting high-quality non-coplanar arc plans as a reference.

Updating approach for lexicographic optimization-based planning to improve cervical cancer plan quality.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the capability of a not-yet commercially available fully automated lexicographic optimization (LO) planning algorithm, called mCycle (Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden), to further improve the plan quality of an already-validated Wish List (WL) pushing on the organs-at-risk (OAR) sparing without compromising target coverage and plan delivery accuracy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-four mono-institutional consecutive cervical cancer Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) plans delivered between November 2019 and April 2022 (50 Gy/25 fractions) have been retrospectively selected. In mCycle the LO planning algorithm was combined with the a-priori multi-criterial optimization (MCO). Two versions of WL have been defined to reproduce manual plans (WL01), and to improve the OAR sparing without affecting minimum target coverage and plan delivery accuracy (WL02). Robust WLs have been tuned using a subset of 4 randomly selected patients. The remaining plans have been automatically re-planned by using the designed WLs. Manual plans (MP) and mCycle plans (mCP01 and mCP02) were compared in terms of dose distributions, complexity, delivery accuracy, and clinical acceptability. Two senior physicians independently performed a blind clinical evaluation, ranking the three competing plans. Furthermore, a previous defined global quality index has been used to gather into a single score the plan quality evaluation. RESULTS: The WL tweaking requests 5 and 3 working days for the WL01 and the WL02, respectively. The re-planning took in both cases 3 working days. mCP01 best performed in terms of target coverage (PTV V95% (%): MP 98.0 [95.6-99.3], mCP01 99.2 [89.7-99.9], mCP02 96.9 [89.4-99.5]), while mCP02 showed a large OAR sparing improvement, especially in the rectum parameters (e.g., Rectum D50% (Gy): MP 41.7 [30.2-47.0], mCP01 40.3 [31.4-45.8], mCP02 32.6 [26.9-42.6]). An increase in plan complexity has been registered in mCPs without affecting plan delivery accuracy. In the blind comparisons, all automated plans were considered clinically acceptable, and mCPs were preferred over MP in 90% of cases. Globally, automated plans registered a plan quality score at least comparable to MP. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed the flexibility of the Lexicographic approach in creating more demanding Wish Lists able to potentially minimize toxicities in RT plans.

Comprehensive dosimetric and clinical evaluation of lexicographic optimization-based planning for cervical cancer.

Aim: In this study, a not yet commercially available fully-automated lexicographic optimization (LO) planning algorithm, called mCycle (Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden), was validated for cervical cancer. Material and methods: Twenty-four mono-institutional consecutive treatment plans (50 Gy/25 fx) delivered between November 2019 and April 2022 were retrospectively selected. The automatic re-planning was performed by mCycle, implemented in the Monaco TPS research version (v5.59.13), in which the LO and Multicriterial Optimization (MCO) are coupled with Monte Carlo calculation. mCycle optimization follows an a priori assigned priority list, the so-called Wish List (WL), representing a dialogue between the radiation oncologist and the planner, setting hard constraints and following objectives. The WL was tuned on a patient subset according to the institution's clinical protocol to obtain an optimal plan in a single optimization. This robust WL was then used to automatically re-plan the remaining patients. Manual plans (MP) and mCycle plans (mCP) were compared in terms of dose distributions, complexity (modulation complexity score, MCS), and delivery accuracy (perpendicular diode matrices, gamma analysis-passing ratio, PR). Their clinical acceptability was assessed through the blind choice of two radiation oncologists. Finally, a global quality score index (SI) was defined to gather into a single number the plan evaluation process. Results: The WL tuning requested four patients. The 20 automated re-planning tasks took three working days. The median optimization and calculation time can be estimated at 4 h and just over 1 h per MP and mCP, respectively. The dose comparison showed a comparable organ-at-risk spare. The planning target volume coverage increased (V95%: MP 98.0% [95.6-99.3]; mCP 99.2%[89.7-99.9], p >0.05). A significant increase has been registered in MCS (MP 0.29 [0.24-0.34]; mCP 0.26 [0.23-0.30], p <0.05) without affecting delivery accuracy (PR (3%/3mm): MP 97.0% [92.7-99.2]; mCP 97.1% [95.0-98.6], p >0.05). In the blind choice, all mCP results were clinically acceptable and chosen over MP in more than 75% of cases. The median SI score was 0.69 [0.41-0.84] and 0.73 [0.51-0.82] for MP and mCP, respectively (p >0.05). Conclusions: mCycle plans were comparable to clinical manual plans, more complex but accurately deliverable and registering a similar SI. Automated plans outperformed manual plans in blinded clinical choice.