Quantifying the Effect of 4-Dimensional Computed Tomography-Based Deformable Dose Accumulation on Representing Radiation Damage for Patients with Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated with Standard-Fractionated Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the dosimetric and clinical effects of 4-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT)-based longitudinal dose accumulation in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with standard-fractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Sixty-seven patients were retrospectively selected from a randomized clinical trial. Their original IMRT plan, planning and verification 4DCTs, and ∼4-month posttreatment follow-up CTs were imported into a commercial treatment planning system. Two deformable image registration algorithms were implemented for dose accumulation, and their accuracies were assessed. The planned and accumulated doses computed using average-intensity images or phase images were compared. At the organ level, mean lung dose and normal-tissue complication probability (NTCP) for grade ≥2 radiation pneumonitis were compared. At the region level, mean dose in lung subsections and the volumetric overlap between isodose intervals were compared. At the voxel level, the accuracy in estimating the delivered dose was compared by evaluating the fit of a dose versus radiographic image density change (IDC) model. The dose-IDC model fit was also compared for subcohorts based on the magnitude of NTCP difference (|ΔNTCP|) between planned and accumulated doses. RESULTS: Deformable image registration accuracy was quantified, and the uncertainty was considered for the voxel-level analysis. Compared with planned doses, accumulated doses on average resulted in <1-Gy lung dose increase and <2% NTCP increase (up to 8.2 Gy and 18.8% for a patient, respectively). Volumetric overlap of isodose intervals between the planned and accumulated dose distributions ranged from 0.01 to 0.93. Voxel-level dose-IDC models demonstrated a fit improvement from planned dose to accumulated dose (pseudo-R2 increased 0.0023) and a further improvement for patients with ≥2% |ΔNTCP| versus for patients with <2% |ΔNTCP|. CONCLUSIONS: With a relatively large cohort, robust image registrations, multilevel metric comparisons, and radiographic image-based evidence, we demonstrated that dose accumulation more accurately represents the delivered dose and can be especially beneficial for patients with greater longitudinal response.

Deep learning-based dose prediction to improve the plan quality of volumetric modulated arc therapy for gynecologic cancers.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, deep-learning models have been used to predict entire three-dimensional dose distributions. However, the usability of dose predictions to improve plan quality should be further investigated. PURPOSE: To develop a deep-learning model to predict high-quality dose distributions for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for patients with gynecologic cancer and to evaluate their usability in driving plan quality improvements. METHODS: A total of 79 VMAT plans for the female pelvis were used to train (47 plans), validate (16 plans), and test (16 plans) 3D dense dilated U-Net models to predict 3D dose distributions. The models received the normalized CT scan, dose prescription, and target and normal tissue contours as inputs. Three models were used to predict the dose distributions for plans in the test set. A radiation oncologist specializing in the treatment of gynecologic cancers scored the test set predictions using a 5-point scale (5, acceptable as-is; 4, prefer minor edits; 3, minor edits needed; 2, major edits needed; and 1, unacceptable). The clinical plans for which the dose predictions indicated that improvements could be made were reoptimized with constraints extracted from the predictions. RESULTS: The predicted dose distributions in the test set were of comparable quality to the clinical plans. The mean voxel-wise dose difference was -0.14 ± 0.46 Gy. The percentage dose differences in the predicted target metrics of D 1 % ${D}_{1{\mathrm{\% }}}$ and D 98 % ${D}_{98{\mathrm{\% }}}$ were -1.05% ± 0.59% and 0.21% ± 0.28%, respectively. The dose differences in the predicted organ at risk mean and maximum doses were -0.30 ± 1.66 Gy and -0.42 ± 2.07 Gy, respectively. A radiation oncologist deemed all of the predicted dose distributions clinically acceptable; 12 received a score of 5, and four received a score of 4. Replanning of flagged plans (five plans) showed that the original plans could be further optimized to give dose distributions close to the predicted dose distributions. CONCLUSIONS: Deep-learning dose prediction can be used to predict high-quality and clinically acceptable dose distributions for VMAT female pelvis plans, which can then be used to identify plans that can be improved with additional optimization.

Deep Learning-Based Dose Prediction for Automated, Individualized Quality Assurance of Head and Neck Radiation Therapy Plans.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to use deep learning-based dose prediction to assess head and neck (HN) plan quality and identify suboptimal plans. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 245 volumetric modulated arc therapy HN plans were created using RapidPlan knowledge-based planning (KBP). A subset of 112 high-quality plans was selected under the supervision of an HN radiation oncologist. We trained a 3D Dense Dilated U-Net architecture to predict 3-dimensional dose distributions using 3-fold cross-validation on 90 plans. Model inputs included computed tomography images, target prescriptions, and contours for targets and organs at risk (OARs). The model's performance was assessed on the remaining 22 test plans. We then tested the application of the dose prediction model for automated review of plan quality. Dose distributions were predicted on 14 clinical plans. The predicted versus clinical OAR dose metrics were compared to flag OARs with suboptimal normal tissue sparing using a 2 Gy dose difference or 3% dose-volume threshold. OAR flags were compared with manual flags by 3 HN radiation oncologists. RESULTS: The predicted dose distributions were of comparable quality to the KBP plans. The differences between the predicted and KBP-planned D1%,D95%, and D99% across the targets were within -2.53% ± 1.34%, -0.42% ± 1.27%, and -0.12% ± 1.97%, respectively, and the OAR mean and maximum doses were within -0.33 ± 1.40 Gy and -0.96 ± 2.08 Gy, respectively. For the plan quality assessment study, radiation oncologists flagged 47 OARs for possible plan improvement. There was high interphysician variability; 83% of physician-flagged OARs were flagged by only one of 3 physicians. The comparative dose prediction model flagged 63 OARs, including 30 of 47 physician-flagged OARs. CONCLUSIONS: Deep learning can predict high-quality dose distributions, which can be used as comparative dose distributions for automated, individualized assessment of HN plan quality.

Predictive modeling using shape statistics for interpretable and robust quality assurance of automated contours in radiation treatment planning.

Deep learning methods for image segmentation and contouring are gaining prominence as an automated approach for delineating anatomical structures in medical images during radiation treatment planning. These contours are used to guide radiotherapy treatment planning, so it is important that contouring errors are flagged before they are used for planning. This creates a need for effective quality assurance methods to enable the clinical use of automated contours in radiotherapy. We propose a novel method for contour quality assurance that requires only shape features, making it independent of the platform used to obtain the images. Our method uses a random forest classifier to identify low-quality contours. On a dataset of 312 kidney contours, our method achieved a cross-validated area under the curve of 0.937 in identifying unacceptable contours. We applied our method to an unlabeled validation dataset of 36 kidney contours. We flagged 6 contours which were then reviewed by a cervix contour specialist, who found that 4 of the 6 contours contained errors. We used Shapley values to characterize the specific shape features that contributed to each contour being flagged, providing a starting point for characterizing the source of the contouring error. These promising results suggest our method is feasible for quality assurance of automated radiotherapy contours.