A multi-institutional comparison of retrospective deformable dose accumulation for online adaptive magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy.

Background and Purpose: Application of different deformable dose accumulation (DDA) solutions makes institutional comparisons after online-adaptive magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy (OA-MRgRT) challenging. The aim of this multi-institutional study was to analyze accuracy and agreement of DDA-implementations in OA-MRgRT. Material and Methods: One gold standard (GS) case deformed with a biomechanical-model and five clinical cases consisting of prostate (2x), cervix, liver, and lymph node cancer, treated with OA-MRgRT, were analyzed. Six centers conducted DDA using institutional implementations. Deformable image registration (DIR) and DDA results were compared using the contour metrics Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), surface-DSC, Hausdorff-distance (HD95%), and accumulated dose-volume histograms (DVHs) analyzed via intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and clinical dosimetric criteria (CDC). Results: For the GS, median DDA errors ranged from 0.0 to 2.8 Gy across contours and implementations. DIR of clinical cases resulted in DSC > 0.8 for up to 81.3% of contours and a variability of surface-DSC values depending on the implementation. Maximum HD95%=73.3 mm was found for duodenum in the liver case. Although DVH ICC > 0.90 was found after DDA for all but two contours, relevant absolute CDC differences were observed in clinical cases: Prostate I/II showed maximum differences in bladder V28Gy (10.2/7.6%), while for cervix, liver, and lymph node the highest differences were found for rectum D2cm3 (2.8 Gy), duodenum Dmax (7.1 Gy), and rectum D0.5cm3 (4.6 Gy). Conclusion: Overall, high agreement was found between the different DIR and DDA implementations. Case- and algorithm-dependent differences were observed, leading to potentially clinically relevant results. Larger studies are needed to define future DDA-guidelines.

Fully automated volumetric modulated arc therapy technique for radiation therapy of locally advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate an a-priori multicriteria plan optimization algorithm (mCycle) for locally advanced breast cancer radiation therapy (RT) by comparing automatically generated VMAT (Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy) plans (AP-VMAT) with manual clinical Helical Tomotherapy (HT) plans. METHODS: The study included 25 patients who received postoperative RT using HT. The patient cohort had diverse target selections, including both left and right breast/chest wall (CW) and III-IV node, with or without internal mammary node (IMN) and Simultaneous Integrated Boost (SIB). The Planning Target Volume (PTV) was obtained by applying a 5 mm isotropic expansion to the CTV (Clinical Target Volume), with a 5 mm clip from the skin. Comparisons of dosimetric parameters and delivery/planning times were conducted. Dosimetric verification of the AP-VMAT plans was performed. RESULTS: The study showed statistically significant improvements in AP-VMAT plans compared to HT for OARs (Organs At Risk) mean dose, except for the heart and ipsilateral lung. No significant differences in V95% were observed for PTV breast/CW and PTV III-IV, while increased coverage (higher V95%) was seen for PTV IMN in AP-VMAT plans. HT plans exhibited smaller values of PTV V105% for breast/CW and III-IV, with no differences in PTV IMN and boost. HT had an average (± standard deviation) delivery time of (17 ± 8) minutes, while AP-VMAT took (3 ± 1) minutes. The average γ passing rate for AP-VMAT plans was 97%±1%. Planning times reduced from an average of 6 h for HT to about 2 min for AP-VMAT. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing AP-VMAT plans with clinical HT plans showed similar or improved quality. The implementation of mCycle demonstrated successful automation of the planning process for VMAT treatment of locally advanced breast cancer, significantly reducing workload.

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.

Fast VMAT planning for prostate radiotherapy: dosimetric validation of a deep learning-based initial segment generation method.

Objective. To develop and evaluate a deep learning based fast volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan generation method for prostate radiotherapy.Approach. A customized 3D U-Net was trained and validated to predict initial segments at 90 evenly distributed control points of an arc, linked to our research treatment planning system (TPS) for segment shape optimization (SSO) and segment weight optimization (SWO). For 27 test patients, the VMAT plans generated based on the deep learning prediction (VMATDL) were compared with VMAT plans generated with a previously validated automated treatment planning method (VMATref). For all test cases, the deep learning prediction accuracy, plan dosimetric quality, and the planning efficiency were quantified and analyzed.Main results. For all 27 test cases, the resulting plans were clinically acceptable. TheV95%for the PTV2 was greater than 99%, and theV107%was below 0.2%. Statistically significant difference in target coverage was not observed between the VMATrefand VMATDLplans (P = 0.3243 > 0.05). The dose sparing effect to the OARs between the two groups of plans was similar. Small differences were only observed for the Dmean of rectum and anus. Compared to the VMATref, the VMATDLreduced 29.3% of the optimization time on average.Significance. A fully automated VMAT plan generation method may result in significant improvement in prostate treatment planning efficiency. Due to the clinically acceptable dosimetric quality and high efficiency, it could potentially be used for clinical planning application and real-time adaptive therapy application after further validation.

Automated Planning for Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy on the 1.5 T MR-Linac.

PURPOSE: Adaptive stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer (PC) by the 1.5 T MR-linac currently requires online planning by an expert user. A fully automated and user-independent solution to adaptive planning (mCycle) of PC-SBRT was compared with user's plans for the 1.5 T MR-linac. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fifty adapted plans on daily magnetic resonance imaging scans for 10 patients with PC treated by 35 Gy (prescription dose [Dp]) in 5 fractions were reoptimized offline from scratch, both by an expert planner (manual) and by mCycle. Manual plans consisted of multicriterial optimization (MCO) of the fluence map plus manual tweaking in segmentation, whereas in mCycle plans, the objectives were sequentially optimized by MCO according to an a-priori assigned priority list. The main criteria for planning approval were a dose ≥95% of the Dp to at least 95% of the planning target volume (PTV), V33.2 (PTV) ≥ 95%, a dose less than the Dp to the hottest cubic centimeter (V35 ≤ 1 cm3) of rectum, bladder, penile bulb, and urethral planning risk volume (ie, urethra plus 3 mm isotropically), and V32 ≤ 5%, V28 ≤ 10%, and V18 ≤ 35% to the rectum. Such dose-volume metrics, plus some efficiency and deliverability metrics, were used for the comparison of mCycle versus manual plans. RESULTS: mCycle plans improved target dose coverage, with V33.2 (PTV) passing on average (±1 SD) from 95.7% (±1.0%) for manual plans to 97.5% (±1.3%) for mCycle plans (P < .001), and rectal dose sparing, with significantly reduced V32, V28, and V18 (P ≤ .004). Although at an equivalent number of segments, mCycle plans consumed moderately more monitor units (+17%) and delivery time (+9%) (P < .001), whereas they were generally faster (-19%) in terms of optimization times (P < .019). No significant differences were found for the passing rates of locally normalized γ (3 mm, 3%) (P = .059) and γ (2 mm, 2%) (P = .432) deliverability metrics. CONCLUSIONS: In the offline setting, mCycle proved to be a trustable solution for automated planning of PC-SBRT on the 1.5 T MR-linac. mCycle integration in the online workflow will free the user from the challenging online-optimization task.

Evaluation of fully automated a priori MCO treatment planning in VMAT for head-and-neck cancer.

PURPOSE: Automated planning techniques aim to reduce manual planning time and inter-operator variability without compromising the plan quality which is particularly challenging for head-and-neck (HN) cancer radiotherapy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of an a priori-multicriteria plan optimization algorithm on a cohort of HN patients. METHODS: A total of 14 nasopharyngeal carcinoma (upper-HN) and 14 "middle-lower indications" (lower-HN) previously treated in our institution were enrolled in this study. Automatically generated plans (autoVMAT) were compared to manual VMAT or Helical Tomotherapy planning (manVMAT-HT) by assessing differences in dose delivered to targets and organs at risk (OARs), calculating plan quality indexes (PQIs) and performing blinded comparisons by clinicians. Quality control of the plans and measurements of the delivery times were also performed. RESULTS: For the 14 lower-HN patients, with equivalent planning target volume (PTV) dosimetric criteria and dose homogeneity, significant decrease in the mean doses to the oral cavity, esophagus, trachea and larynx were observed for autoVMAT compared to manVMAT-HT. Regarding the 14 upper-HN cases, the PTV coverage was generally significantly superior for autoVMAT which was also confirmed with higher calculated PQIs on PTVs for 13 out of 14 patients, whereas PQIs calculated on OARs were generally equivalent. Number of MUs and total delivery time were significantly higher for autoVMAT compared to manVMAT. All plans were considered clinically acceptable by clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Overall superiority of autoVMAT compared to manVMAT-HT plans was demonstrated for HN cancer. The obtained plans were operator-independent and required no post-optimization or manual intervention.

Comparison of intensity modulated radiotherapy plan optimisation methods for a 1.5 T MR-Linac.

PURPOSE: For the 1.5 T Elekta MR-Linac it is essential that the optimisation of a treatment plan accounts for the electron return effect on the planned dose distribution. The ability of two algorithms for the first stage fluence optimisation, pencil beam (PB) and Monte Carlo (MC), to produce acceptable plan quality was investigated. Optimisation time for each algorithm was also compared. METHODS: Ten head and neck patients, ten lung patients and five prostate patients were selected from the clinical archive. These were retrospectively planned using a research version of Monaco with both the PB and MC algorithms for the fluence optimisation stage. After full optimisation DVH parameters, optimisation time and the number of Monitor Units (MU) as a measure of plan complexity were extracted. RESULTS: There were no clinically significant differences between any of the DVH parameters studied or the total number of MUs between using PB or MC for stage 1 optimisation across the three patient groups. However, planning time increased by a factor of ten using MC algorithms for stage 1. CONCLUSION: The use of MC calculations compared to PB, for stage 1 fluence optimisation, results in increased planning time without clinical improvement in plan quality or reduction in complexity and is therefore not necessary.

Fully automated, multi-criterial planning for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy - An international multi-center validation for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Reported plan quality improvements with autoplanning of radiotherapy of the prostate and seminal vesicles are poor. A system for automated multi-criterial planning has been validated for this treatment in a large international multi-center study. The system is configured with training plans using a mechanism that strives for quality improvements relative to those plans. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Each of the four participating centers included thirty manually generated clinical Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy prostate plans (manVMAT). Ten plans were used for autoplanning training. The other twenty were compared with an automatically generated plan (autoVMAT). Plan evaluations considered dosimetric plan parameters and blinded side-by-side plan comparisons by clinicians. RESULTS: With equivalent Planning Target Volume (PTV) V95%, D2%, D98%, and dose homogeneity autoVMAT was overall superior for rectum with median differences of 3.4 Gy (p < 0.001) in Dmean, 4.0% (p < 0.001) in V60Gy, and 1.5% (p = 0.001) in V75Gy, and for bladder Dmean (0.9 Gy, p < 0.001). Also the clinicians' plan comparisons pointed at an overall preference for autoVMAT. Advantages of autoVMAT were highly treatment center- and patient-specific with overall ranges for differences in rectum Dmean and V60Gy of [-4,12] Gy and [-2,15]%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Observed advantages of autoplanning were clinically relevant and larger than reported in the literature. The latter is likely related to the multi-criterial nature of the applied autoplanning algorithm, with for each center a dedicated configuration that aims at plan improvements relative to its (clinical) training plans. Large variations among patients in differences between manVMAT and autoVMAT point at inconsistencies in manual planning.

Fully automated treatment planning of spinal metastases - A comparison to manual planning of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for conventionally fractionated irradiation.

BACKGROUND: Planning for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) may be time consuming and its use is limited by available staff resources. Automated multicriterial treatment planning can eliminate this bottleneck. We compared automatically created (auto) VMAT plans generated by Erasmus-iCycle to manually created VMAT plans for treatment of spinal metastases. METHODS: Forty-two targets in 32 patients were analyzed. Lungs and kidneys were defined as organs at risk (OARs). Twenty-two patients received radiotherapy on kidney levels, 17 on lung levels, and 3 on both levels. RESULTS: All Erasmus-iCycle plans were clinically acceptable. When compared to manual plans, planning target volume (PTV) coverage of auto plans was significantly better. The Homogeneity Index did not differ significantly between the groups. Mean dose to OARs was lower in auto plans concerning both kidneys and the left lung. One hotspot (>110% of D50%) occurred in the spinal cord of one auto plan (33.2 Gy, D50%: 30 Gy). Treatment time was 7% longer in auto plans. CONCLUSIONS: Erasmus-iCycle plans showed better target coverage and sparing of OARs at the expense of minimally longer treatment times (for which no constraint was set).

Validation of Fully Automated VMAT Plan Generation for Library-Based Plan-of-the-Day Cervical Cancer Radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To develop and validate fully automated generation of VMAT plan-libraries for plan-of-the-day adaptive radiotherapy in locally-advanced cervical cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Our framework for fully automated treatment plan generation (Erasmus-iCycle) was adapted to create dual-arc VMAT treatment plan libraries for cervical cancer patients. For each of 34 patients, automatically generated VMAT plans (autoVMAT) were compared to manually generated, clinically delivered 9-beam IMRT plans (CLINICAL), and to dual-arc VMAT plans generated manually by an expert planner (manVMAT). Furthermore, all plans were benchmarked against 20-beam equi-angular IMRT plans (autoIMRT). For all plans, a PTV coverage of 99.5% by at least 95% of the prescribed dose (46 Gy) had the highest planning priority, followed by minimization of V45Gy for small bowel (SB). Other OARs considered were bladder, rectum, and sigmoid. RESULTS: All plans had a highly similar PTV coverage, within the clinical constraints (above). After plan normalizations for exactly equal median PTV doses in corresponding plans, all evaluated OAR parameters in autoVMAT plans were on average lower than in the CLINICAL plans with an average reduction in SB V45Gy of 34.6% (p<0.001). For 41/44 autoVMAT plans, SB V45Gy was lower than for manVMAT (p<0.001, average reduction 30.3%), while SB V15Gy increased by 2.3% (p = 0.011). AutoIMRT reduced SB V45Gy by another 2.7% compared to autoVMAT, while also resulting in a 9.0% reduction in SB V15Gy (p<0.001), but with a prolonged delivery time. Differences between manVMAT and autoVMAT in bladder, rectal and sigmoid doses were ≤ 1%. Improvements in SB dose delivery with autoVMAT instead of manVMAT were higher for empty bladder PTVs compared to full bladder PTVs, due to differences in concavity of the PTVs. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of automatically generated VMAT plans was superior to manually generated plans. Automatic VMAT plan generation for cervical cancer has been implemented in our clinical routine. Due to the achieved workload reduction, extension of plan libraries has become feasible.

Comparison of VMAT and IMRT strategies for cervical cancer patients using automated planning.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In a published study on cervical cancer, 5-beam IMRT was inferior to single arc VMAT. Here we compare 9, 12, and 20 beam IMRT with single and dual arc VMAT. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For each of 10 patients, automated plan generation with the in-house Erasmus-iCycle optimizer was used to assist an expert planner in generating the five plans with the clinical TPS. RESULTS: For each patient, all plans were clinically acceptable with a high and similar PTV coverage. OAR sparing increased when going from 9 to 12 to 20 IMRT beams, and from single to dual arc VMAT. For all patients, 12 and 20 beam IMRT were superior to single and dual arc VMAT, with substantial variations in gain among the study patients. As expected, delivery of VMAT plans was significantly faster than delivery of IMRT plans. CONCLUSIONS: Often reported increased plan quality for VMAT compared to IMRT has not been observed for cervical cancer. Twenty and 12 beam IMRT plans had a higher quality than single and dual arc VMAT. For individual patients, the optimal delivery technique depends on a complex trade-off between plan quality and treatment time that may change with introduction of faster delivery systems.

Fully automated volumetric modulated arc therapy plan generation for prostate cancer patients.

PURPOSE: To develop and evaluate fully automated volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment planning for prostate cancer patients, avoiding manual trial-and-error tweaking of plan parameters by dosimetrists. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A system was developed for fully automated generation of VMAT plans with our commercial clinical treatment planning system (TPS), linked to the in-house developed Erasmus-iCycle multicriterial optimizer for preoptimization. For 30 randomly selected patients, automatically generated VMAT plans (VMATauto) were compared with VMAT plans generated manually by 1 expert dosimetrist in the absence of time pressure (VMATman). For all treatment plans, planning target volume (PTV) coverage and sparing of organs-at-risk were quantified. RESULTS: All generated plans were clinically acceptable and had similar PTV coverage (V95% > 99%). For VMATauto and VMATman plans, the organ-at-risk sparing was similar as well, although only the former plans were generated without any planning workload. CONCLUSIONS: Fully automated generation of high-quality VMAT plans for prostate cancer patients is feasible and has recently been implemented in our clinic.

A margin-of-the-day online adaptive intensity-modulated radiotherapy strategy for cervical cancer provides superior treatment accuracy compared to clinically recommended margins: a dosimetric evaluation.

PURPOSE: To dosimetrically evaluate a margin-of-the-day (MoD) online adaptive intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) strategy for cervical cancer patients. The strategy is based on a single planning computed tomography (CT) scan and a pretreatment constructed IMRT plan library with incremental clinical target volumes (CTV)-to-planning target volumes (PTV) margins. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For 14 patients, 9-10 variable bladder filling CT scans acquired at pretreatment and after 40 Gy were available. Bladder volume variability during the treatment course was recorded by twice-weekly US bladder-volume measurements. A MoD strategy that selects the best IMRT plan of the day from a library of plans with incremental margins in steps of 5 mm was compared with a clinically recommended population-based margin (15 mm). To compare the strategies, for each fraction that had a recorded US bladder-volume measurement, the CT scan with the nearest bladder volume was selected from the pretreatment CT series and from the CT series acquired after 40 Gy. A frequency-weighted average of the dose-volume histograms (DVH) parameters calculated for the two selected CT scans was used to estimate the DVH parameters of the fraction of interest. RESULTS: The 15-mm recommended margin resulted in cervix-uterus underdosage in six of 14 patients. Compared with the 15-mm margin, the MoD strategy resulted in significantly better cervix-uterus coverage (p = 0.008) without a significant difference in the sparing of rectum, bladder, and small bowel. For each patient, 3-8 (median 5) plans were needed in the library of plans for the MoD strategy. The required range of the MoD was 5-45 mm (median 15 mm). Twenty-five percent of all fractions could be treated with a MoD of 5 mm and 81% of all fractions could be treated with a MoD up to 25 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with a clinically recommended margin, a simple online adaptive strategy resulted in better cervix-uterus coverage without compromising organs at risk sparing.

Automated generation of IMRT treatment plans for prostate cancer patients with metal hip prostheses: comparison of different planning strategies.

PURPOSE: To compare IMRT planning strategies for prostate cancer patients with metal hip prostheses. METHODS: All plans were generated fully automatically (i.e., no human trial-and-error interactions) using iCycle, the authors' in-house developed algorithm for multicriterial selection of beam angles and optimization of fluence profiles, allowing objective comparison of planning strategies. For 18 prostate cancer patients (eight with bilateral hip prostheses, ten with a right-sided unilateral prosthesis), two planning strategies were evaluated: (i) full exclusion of beams containing beamlets that would deliver dose to the target after passing a prosthesis (IMRT remove) and (ii) exclusion of those beamlets only (IMRT cut). Plans with optimized coplanar and noncoplanar beam arrangements were generated. Differences in PTV coverage and sparing of organs at risk (OARs) were quantified. The impact of beam number on plan quality was evaluated. RESULTS: Especially for patients with bilateral hip prostheses, IMRT cut significantly improved rectum and bladder sparing compared to IMRT remove. For 9-beam coplanar plans, rectum V60 Gy reduced by 17.5% ± 15.0% (maximum 37.4%, p = 0.036) and rectum D mean by 9.4% ± 7.8% (maximum 19.8%, p = 0.036). Further improvements in OAR sparing were achievable by using noncoplanar beam setups, reducing rectum V 60Gy by another 4.6% ± 4.9% (p = 0.012) for noncoplanar 9-beam IMRT cut plans. Large reductions in rectum dose delivery were also observed when increasing the number of beam directions in the plans. For bilateral implants, the rectum V 60Gy was 37.3% ± 12.1% for coplanar 7-beam plans and reduced on average by 13.5% (maximum 30.1%, p = 0.012) for 15 directions. CONCLUSIONS: iCycle was able to automatically generate high quality plans for prostate cancer patients with prostheses. Excluding only beamlets that passed through the prostheses (IMRTcut strategy) significantly improved OAR sparing. Noncoplanar beam arrangements and, to a larger extent, increasing the number of treatment beams further improved plan quality.

Toward fully automated multicriterial plan generation: a prospective clinical study.

PURPOSE: To prospectively compare plans generated with iCycle, an in-house-developed algorithm for fully automated multicriterial intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) beam profile and beam orientation optimization, with plans manually generated by dosimetrists using the clinical treatment planning system. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For 20 randomly selected head-and-neck cancer patients with various tumor locations (of whom 13 received sequential boost treatments), we offered the treating physician the choice between an automatically generated iCycle plan and a manually optimized plan using standard clinical procedures. Although iCycle used a fixed "wish list" with hard constraints and prioritized objectives, the dosimetrists manually selected the beam configuration and fine tuned the constraints and objectives for each IMRT plan. Dosimetrists were not informed in advance whether a competing iCycle plan was made. The 2 plans were simultaneously presented to the physician, who then selected the plan to be used for treatment. For the patient group, differences in planning target volume coverage and sparing of critical tissues were quantified. RESULTS: In 32 of 33 plan comparisons, the physician selected the iCycle plan for treatment. This highly consistent preference for the automatically generated plans was mainly caused by the improved sparing for the large majority of critical structures. With iCycle, the normal tissue complication probabilities for the parotid and submandibular glands were reduced by 2.4% ± 4.9% (maximum, 18.5%, P=.001) and 6.5% ± 8.3% (maximum, 27%, P=.005), respectively. The reduction in the mean oral cavity dose was 2.8 ± 2.8 Gy (maximum, 8.1 Gy, P=.005). For the swallowing muscles, the esophagus and larynx, the mean dose reduction was 3.3 ± 1.1 Gy (maximum, 9.2 Gy, P<.001). For 15 of the 20 patients, target coverage was also improved. CONCLUSIONS: In 97% of cases, automatically generated plans were selected for treatment because of the superior quality. Apart from the improved plan quality, automatic plan generation is economically attractive because of the reduced workload.

On the beam direction search space in computerized non-coplanar beam angle optimization for IMRT-prostate SBRT.

In a recent paper, we have published a new algorithm, designated 'iCycle', for fully automated multi-criterial optimization of beam angles and intensity profiles. In this study, we have used this algorithm to investigate the relationship between plan quality and the extent of the beam direction search space, i.e. the set of candidate beam directions that may be selected for generating an optimal plan. For a group of ten prostate cancer patients, optimal IMRT plans were made for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), mimicking high dose rate brachytherapy dosimetry. Plans were generated for five different beam direction input sets: a coplanar (CP) set and four non-coplanar (NCP) sets. For CP treatments, the search space consisted of 72 orientations (5° separations). The NCP CyberKnife (CK) space contained all directions available in the robotic CK treatment unit. The fully non-coplanar (F-NCP) set facilitated the highest possible degree of freedom in selecting optimal directions. CK(+) and CK(++) were subsets of F-NCP to investigate some aspects of the CK space. For each input set, plans were generated with up to 30 selected beam directions. Generated plans were clinically acceptable, according to an assessment of our clinicians. Convergence in plan quality occurred only after around 20 included beams. For individual patients, variations in PTV dose delivery between the five generated plans were minimal, as aimed for (average spread in V(95): 0.4%). This allowed plan comparisons based on organ at risk (OAR) doses, with the rectum considered most important. Plans generated with the NCP search spaces had improved OAR sparing compared to the CP search space, especially for the rectum. OAR sparing was best with the F-NCP, with reductions in rectum D(Mean), V(40Gy), V(60Gy) and D(2%) compared to CP of 25%, 35%, 37% and 8%, respectively. Reduced rectum sparing with the CK search space compared to F-NCP could be largely compensated by expanding CK with beams with relatively large direction components along the superior-inferior axis (CK(++)). Addition of posterior beams (CK(++) → F-NCP) did not lead to further improvements in OAR sparing. Plans with 25 beams clearly performed better than 11-beam plans. For CP plans, an increase from 11 to 25 involved beams resulted in reductions in rectum D(Mean), V(40Gy), V(60Gy) and D(2%) of 39%, 57%, 64% and 13%, respectively.

Integrated multicriterial optimization of beam angles and intensity profiles for coplanar and noncoplanar head and neck IMRT and implications for VMAT.

PURPOSE: To quantify improved salivary gland sparing for head and neck cancer patients using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans based on integrated computerized optimization of beam orientations and intensity profiles. To assess if optimized nonzero couch angles also improve VMAT plans. METHODS: Our in-house developed algorithm iCycle was used for automated generation of multicriterial optimized plans with optimized beam orientations and intensity profiles, and plans with optimized profiles for preselected beam arrangements. For 20 patients, five IMRT plans, based on one "wish-list," were compared: (i) and (ii) seven- and nine-beam equiangular coplanar plans (iCycle(7equi), iCycle(9equi)), (iii) and (iv) nine-beam plans with optimized coplanar and noncoplanar beam orientations (iCycle(copl), iCycle(noncopl)), and (v) a nine-beam coplanar plan with optimized gantry angles and one optimized couch rotation (iCycle(couch)). VMAT plans without and with this optimized couch rotation were evaluated. RESULTS: iCycle(noncopl) resulted in the best salivary gland sparing, while iCycle(couch) yielded similar results for 18 patients. For iCycle(7equi), submandibular gland NTCP values were on average 5% higher. iCycle(9equi) performed better than iCycle(7equi). iCycle(copl) showed further improvement. Application of the optimized couch angle from iCycle(couch) also improved NTCP values in VMAT plans. CONCLUSIONS: iCycle allows objective comparison of competing planning strategies. Integrated optimization of beam profiles and angles can significantly improve normal tissue sparing, yielding optimal results for iCycle(noncopl).

iCycle: Integrated, multicriterial beam angle, and profile optimization for generation of coplanar and noncoplanar IMRT plans.

PURPOSE: To introduce iCycle, a novel algorithm for integrated, multicriterial optimization of beam angles, and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) profiles. METHODS: A multicriterial plan optimization with iCycle is based on a prescription called wish-list, containing hard constraints and objectives with ascribed priorities. Priorities are ordinal parameters used for relative importance ranking of the objectives. The higher an objective priority is, the higher the probability that the corresponding objective will be met. Beam directions are selected from an input set of candidate directions. Input sets can be restricted, e.g., to allow only generation of coplanar plans, or to avoid collisions between patient/couch and the gantry in a noncoplanar setup. Obtaining clinically feasible calculation times was an important design criterium for development of iCycle. This could be realized by sequentially adding beams to the treatment plan in an iterative procedure. Each iteration loop starts with selection of the optimal direction to be added. Then, a Pareto-optimal IMRT plan is generated for the (fixed) beam setup that includes all so far selected directions, using a previously published algorithm for multicriterial optimization of fluence profiles for a fixed beam arrangement Breedveld et al. [Phys. Med. Biol. 54, 7199-7209 (2009)]. To select the next direction, each not yet selected candidate direction is temporarily added to the plan and an optimization problem, derived from the Lagrangian obtained from the just performed optimization for establishing the Pareto-optimal plan, is solved. For each patient, a single one-beam, two-beam, three-beam, etc. Pareto-optimal plan is generated until addition of beams does no longer result in significant plan quality improvement. Plan generation with iCycle is fully automated. RESULTS: Performance and characteristics of iCycle are demonstrated by generating plans for a maxillary sinus case, a cervical cancer patient, and a liver patient treated with SBRT. Plans generated with beam angle optimization did better meet the clinical goals than equiangular or manually selected configurations. For the maxillary sinus and liver cases, significant improvements for noncoplanar setups were seen. The cervix case showed that also in IMRT with coplanar setups, beam angle optimization with iCycle may improve plan quality. Computation times for coplanar plans were around 1-2 h and for noncoplanar plans 4-7 h, depending on the number of beams and the complexity of the site. CONCLUSIONS: Integrated beam angle and profile optimization with iCycle may result in significant improvements in treatment plan quality. Due to automation, the plan generation workload is minimal. Clinical application has started.

IMRT for image-guided single vocal cord irradiation.

PURPOSE: We have been developing an image-guided single vocal cord irradiation technique to treat patients with stage T1a glottic carcinoma. In the present study, we compared the dose coverage to the affected vocal cord and the dose delivered to the organs at risk using conventional, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) coplanar, and IMRT non-coplanar techniques. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For 10 patients, conventional treatment plans using two laterally opposed wedged 6-MV photon beams were calculated in XiO (Elekta-CMS treatment planning system). An in-house IMRT/beam angle optimization algorithm was used to obtain the coplanar and non-coplanar optimized beam angles. Using these angles, the IMRT plans were generated in Monaco (IMRT treatment planning system, Elekta-CMS) with the implemented Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm. The organs at risk included the contralateral vocal cord, arytenoids, swallowing muscles, carotid arteries, and spinal cord. The prescription dose was 66 Gy in 33 fractions. RESULTS: For the conventional plans and coplanar and non-coplanar IMRT plans, the population-averaged mean dose ± standard deviation to the planning target volume was 67 ± 1 Gy. The contralateral vocal cord dose was reduced from 66 ± 1 Gy in the conventional plans to 39 ± 8 Gy and 36 ± 6 Gy in the coplanar and non-coplanar IMRT plans, respectively. IMRT consistently reduced the doses to the other organs at risk. CONCLUSIONS: Single vocal cord irradiation with IMRT resulted in good target coverage and provided significant sparing of the critical structures. This has the potential to improve the quality-of-life outcomes after RT and maintain the same local control rates.

Does atlas-based autosegmentation of neck levels require subsequent manual contour editing to avoid risk of severe target underdosage? A dosimetric analysis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To investigate the dosimetric impact of not editing auto-contours of the elective neck and organs at risk (OAR), generated with atlas-based autosegmentation (ABAS) (Elekta software) for head and neck cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For nine patients ABAS auto-contours and auto-contours edited by two observers were available. Based on the non-edited auto-contours clinically acceptable IMRT plans were constructed (designated 'ABAS plans'). These plans were then evaluated for the two edited structure sets, by quantifying the percentage of the neck-PTV receiving more than 95% of the prescribed dose (V(95)) and the near-minimum dose (D(99)) in the neck PTV. Dice coefficients and mean contour distances were calculated to quantify the similarity of ABAS auto-contours with the structure sets edited by observer 1 and observer 2. To study the dosimetric importance of editing OAR auto-contours a new IMRT plan was generated for each patient-observer combination, based on the observer's edited CTV and the non-edited salivary gland auto-contours. For each plan mean doses for the non-edited glands were compared with doses for the same glands edited by the observer. RESULTS: For both observers, edited neck CTVs were larger than ABAS auto-contours (p≤ 0.04), by a mean of 8.7%. When evaluating ABAS plans on the PTVs of the edited structure sets, V(95) reduced by 7.2%±5.4% (1 SD) (p<0.03). The mean reduction in D(99) was 14.2 Gy (range 1-54 Gy). Even for Dice coefficients >0.8 and mean contour distances <1mm, reductions in D(99) up to 11Gy were observed. For treatment plans based on observer PTVs and non-edited auto-contoured salivary glands, the mean doses in the edited glands differed by only -0.6 Gy±1.0 Gy (p=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Editing of auto-contoured neck CTVs generated by ABAS is required to avoid large underdosages in target volumes. Often used similarity measures for evaluation of auto-contouring algorithms, such as dice coefficients, do not predict well for expected PTV underdose. Editing of salivary glands is less important as mean doses achieved for non-edited glands predict well for edited structures.