Influence of Beam Angle on Normal Tissue Complication Probability of Knowledge-Based Head and Neck Cancer Proton Planning.

Knowledge-based planning solutions have brought significant improvements in treatment planning. However, the performance of a proton-specific knowledge-based planning model in creating knowledge-based plans (KBPs) with beam angles differing from those used to train the model remains unexplored. We used a previously validated RapidPlanPT model and scripting to create nine KBPs, one with default and eight with altered beam angles, for 10 recent oropharynx cancer patients. The altered-angle plans were compared against the default-angle ones in terms of grade 2 dysphagia and xerostomia normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), mean doses of several organs at risk, and dose homogeneity index (HI). As KBP could be suboptimal, a proof of principle automatic iterative optimizer (AIO) was added with the aim of reducing the plan NTCP. There were no statistically significant differences in NTCP or HI between default- and altered-angle KBPs, and the altered-angle plans showed a <1% reduction in NTCP. AIO was able to reduce the sum of grade 2 NTCPs in 66/90 cases with mean a reduction of 3.5 ± 1.8%. While the altered-angle plans saw greater benefit from AIO, both default- and altered-angle plans could be improved, indicating that the KBP model alone was not completely optimal to achieve the lowest NTCP. Overall, the data showed that the model was robust to the various beam arrangements within the range described in this analysis.

Using multi-centre data to train and validate a knowledge-based model for planning radiotherapy of the head and neck.

Background and purpose: Knowledge-based radiotherapy planning models have been shown to reduce healthy tissue dose and optimisation times, with larger training databases delivering greater robustness. We propose a method of combining knowledge-based models from multiple centres to create a 'super-model' using their collective patient libraries, thereby increasing the breadth of training knowledge. Materials and methods: A head and neck super-model containing 207 patient datasets was created by merging the data libraries of three centres. Validation was performed on 30 independent datasets during which optimiser parameters were tuned to deliver the optimal set of model template objectives. The super-model was tested on a further 40 unseen patients from four radiotherapy centres, including one centre external to the training process. The generated plans were assessed using established plan evaluation criteria. Results: The super-model generated plans that surpassed the dose objectives for all patients with single optimisations in an average time of 10 min. Healthy tissue sparing was significantly improved over manual planning, with dose reductions to parotid of 4.7 ± 2.1 Gy, spinal cord of 3.3 ± 0.9 Gy and brainstem of 2.9 ± 1.7 Gy. Target coverage met the established constraints but was marginally reduced compared with clinical plans. Conclusions: Three centres successfully merged patient libraries to create a super-model capable of generating plans that met plan evaluation criteria for head and neck patients with improvements in healthy tissue sparing. The findings indicate that the super-model could improve head and neck planning quality, efficiency and consistency across radiotherapy centres.

Toward automatic beam angle selection for pencil-beam scanning proton liver treatments: A deep learning-based approach.

BACKGROUND: Dose deposition characteristics of proton radiation can be advantageous over photons. Proton treatment planning, however, poses additional challenges for the planners. Proton therapy is usually delivered with only a small number of beam angles, and the quality of a proton treatment plan is largely determined by the beam angles employed. Finding the optimal beam angles for a proton treatment plan requires time and experience, motivating the investigation of automatic beam angle selection methods. PURPOSE: A deep learning-based approach to automatic beam angle selection is proposed for the proton pencil-beam scanning treatment planning of liver lesions. METHODS: We cast beam-angle selection as a multi-label classification problem. To account for angular boundary discontinuity, the underlying convolution neural network is trained with the proposed Circular Earth Mover's Distance-based regularization and multi-label circular-smooth label technique. Furthermore, an analytical algorithm emulating proton treatment planners' clinical practice is employed in post-processing to improve the output of the model. Forty-nine patients that received proton liver treatments between 2017 and 2020 were randomly divided into training (n = 31), validation (n = 7), and test sets (n = 11). AI-selected beam angles were compared with those angles selected by human planners, and the dosimetric outcome was investigated by creating plans using knowledge-based treatment planning. RESULTS: For 7 of the 11 cases in the test set, AI-selected beam angles agreed with those chosen by human planners to within 20° (median angle difference = 10°; mean = 18.6°). Moreover, out of the total 22 beam angles predicted by the model, 15 (68%) were within 10° of the human-selected angles. The high correlation in beam angles resulted in comparable dosimetric statistics between proton treatment plans generated using AI- and human-selected angles. For the cases with beam angle differences exceeding 20°, the dosimetric analysis showed similar plan quality although with different emphases on organ-at-risk sparing. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of a novel deep learning-based beam angle selection technique. Testing on liver cancer patients showed that the resulting plans were clinically viable with comparable dosimetric quality to those using human-selected beam angles. In tandem with auto-contouring and knowledge-based treatment planning tools, the proposed model could represent a pathway for nearly fully automated treatment planning in proton therapy.

Fast, Automated, Knowledge-Based Treatment Planning for Selecting Patients for Proton Therapy Based on Normal Tissue Complication Probabilities.

Purpose: Selecting patients who will benefit from proton therapy is laborious and subjective. We demonstrate a novel automated solution for creating high-quality knowledge-based plans (KBPs) using proton and photon beams to identify patients for proton treatment based on their normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP). Methods and Materials: Two previously validated RapidPlan PT models for locally advanced head and neck cancer were used in combination with scripting to automatically create proton and photon KBPs for 72 patients with recent oropharynx cancer. NTCPs were calculated for each patient based on the KBPs, and patient selection was simulated according to the current Dutch national protocol. Results: The photon/proton KBP exhibited good correlation between predicted and achieved organ-at-risk mean doses, with a ≤5 Gy difference in 208/196 out of 215 structures relevant for the head and neck cancer NTCP model. The proton KBPs yielded on average 7.1/6.1/7.6 Gy lower dose to salivary/swallowing structures/oral cavity than the photon KBPs. This reduced average grade 2/3 dysphagia and xerostomia by 7.1/3.3 and 5.5/2.0 percentage points, resulting in 16 of 72 patients (22%) being indicated for proton treatment. The entire automated process took <30 minutes per patient. Conclusions: Automated support for decision making using KBP is feasible and fast. The planning solution has potential to speed up the planning and patient-selection process significantly without major compromises to the plan quality.

The role of a knowledge based dose-volume histogram predictive model in the optimisation of intensity-modulated proton plans for hepatocellular carcinoma patients : Training and validation of a novel commercial system.

PURPOSE: To investigate the performance of a knowledge-based RapidPlan, for optimisation of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans applied to hepatocellular cancer (HCC) patients. METHODS: A cohort of 65 patients was retrospectively selected: 50 were used to "train" the model, while the remaining 15 provided independent validation. The performance of the RapidPlan model was benchmarked against manual optimisation and was also compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy (RapidArc) photon plans. A subanalysis appraised the performance of the RapidPlan model applied to patients with lesions ≤300 cm3 or larger. Quantitative assessment was based on several metrics derived from the constraints of the NRG-GI003 clinical trial. RESULTS: There was an equivalence between manual plans and RapidPlan-optimised IMPT plans, which outperformed the RapidArc plans. The planning dose-volume objectives were met on average for all structures except for D0.5 cm3 ≤30 Gy in the bowels. Limiting the results to the class-solution proton plans (all values in Gy), the data for manual plans vs RapidPlan-based IMPT plans, respectively, showed the following: D99% to the target of 47.5 ± 1.4 vs 47.2 ± 1.2; for organs at risk, the mean dose to the healthy liver was 6.7 ± 3.6 vs 6.7 ± 3.7; the mean dose to the kidneys was 0.2 ± 0.5 vs 0.1 ± 0.2; D0.5 cm3 for the bowels was 33.4 ± 16.4 vs 30.2 ± 16.0; for the stomach was 17.9 ± 19.9 vs 14.9 ± 18.8; for the oesophagus was 17.9 ± 15.1 vs 14.9 ± 13.9; for the spinal cord was 0.5 ± 1.6 vs 0.2 ± 0.7. The model performed similarly for cases with small or large lesions. CONCLUSION: A knowledge-based RapidPlan model was trained and validated for IMPT. The results demonstrate that RapidPlan can be trained adequately for IMPT in HCC. The quality of the RapidPlan-based plans is at least equivalent compared to what is achievable with manual planning. RapidPlan also confirmed the potential to optimise the quality of the proton therapy results, thus reducing the impact of operator planning skills on patient results.

A benchmarking method to evaluate the accuracy of a commercial proton monte carlo pencil beam scanning treatment planning system.

AcurosPT is a Monte Carlo algorithm in the Eclipse 13.7 treatment planning system, which is designed to provide rapid and accurate dose calculations for proton therapy. Computational run-time in minimized by simplifying or eliminating less significant physics processes. In this article, the accuracy of AcurosPT was benchmarked against both measurement and an independent MC calculation, TOPAS. Such a method can be applied to any new MC calculation for the detection of potential inaccuracies. To validate multiple Coulomb scattering (MCS) which affects primary beam broadening, single spot profiles in a Solidwater® phantom were compared for beams of five selected proton energies between AcurosPT, measurement and TOPAS. The spot Gaussian sigma in AcurosPT was found to increase faster with depth than both measurement and TOPAS, suggesting that the MCS algorithm in AcurosPT overestimates the scattering effect. To validate AcurosPT modeling of the halo component beyond primary beam broadening, field size factors (FSF) were compared for multi-spot profiles measured in a water phantom. The FSF for small field sizes were found to disagree with measurement, with the disagreement increasing with depth. Conversely, TOPAS simulations of the same FSF consistently agreed with measurement to within 1.5%. The disagreement in absolute dose between AcurosPT and measurement was smaller than 2% at the mid-range depth of multi-energy beams. While AcurosPT calculates acceptable dose distributions for typical clinical beams, users are cautioned of potentially larger errors at distal depths due to overestimated MCS and halo implementation.

Selective robust optimization: A new intensity-modulated proton therapy optimization strategy.

PURPOSE: To develop a new robust optimization strategy for intensity-modulated proton therapy as an important step in translating robust proton treatment planning from research to clinical applications. METHODS: In selective robust optimization, a worst-case-based robust optimization algorithm is extended, and terms of the objective function are selectively computed from either the worst-case dose or the nominal dose. Two lung cancer cases and one head and neck cancer case were used to demonstrate the practical significance of the proposed robust planning strategy. The lung cancer cases had minimal tumor motion less than 5 mm, and, for the demonstration of the methodology, are assumed to be static. RESULTS: Selective robust optimization achieved robust clinical target volume (CTV) coverage and at the same time increased nominal planning target volume coverage to 95.8%, compared to the 84.6% coverage achieved with CTV-based robust optimization in one of the lung cases. In the other lung case, the maximum dose in selective robust optimization was lowered from a dose of 131.3% in the CTV-based robust optimization to 113.6%. Selective robust optimization provided robust CTV coverage in the head and neck case, and at the same time improved controls over isodose distribution so that clinical requirements may be readily met. CONCLUSIONS: Selective robust optimization may provide the flexibility and capability necessary for meeting various clinical requirements in addition to achieving the required plan robustness in practical proton treatment planning settings.