Initial evaluation of automated treatment planning software.

Even with advanced inverse-planning techniques, radiation treatment plan opti-mization remains a very time-consuming task with great output variability, which prompted the development of more automated approaches. One commercially available technique mimics the actions of experienced human operators to pro-gressively guide the traditional optimization process with automatically created regions of interest and associated dose-volume objectives. We report on the initial evaluation of this algorithm on 10 challenging cases of locoreginally advanced head and neck cancer. All patients were treated with VMAT to 70 Gy to the gross disease and 56 Gy to the elective bilateral nodes. The results of post-treatment autoplanning (AP) were compared to the original human-driven plans (HDP). We used an objective scoring system based on defining a collection of specific dosimetric metrics and corresponding numeric score functions for each. Five AP techniques with different input dose goals were applied to all patients. The best of them averaged the composite score 8% lower than the HDP, across the patient population. The difference in median values was statistically significant at the 95% confidence level (Wilcoxon paired signed-rank test p = 0.027). This result reflects the premium the institution places on dose homogeneity, which was consistently higher with the HDPs. The OAR sparing was consistently better with the APs, the differences reaching statistical significance for the mean doses to the parotid glands (p < 0.001) and the inferior pharyngeal constrictor (p = 0.016), as well as for the maximum doses to the spinal cord (p = 0.018) and brainstem (p = 0.040). If one is prepared to accept less stringent dose homogeneity criteria from the RTOG 1016 protocol, nine APs would comply with the protocol, while providing lower OAR doses than the HDPs. Overall, AP is a promising clinical tool, but it could benefit from a better process for shifting the balance between the target dose coverage/homogeneity and OAR sparing.

A method for a priori estimation of best feasible DVH for organs-at-risk: Validation for head and neck VMAT planning.

PURPOSE: Despite improvements in optimization and automation algorithms, the quality of radiation treatment plans still varies dramatically. A tool that allows a priori estimation of the best possible sparing (Feasibility DVH, or FDVH) of an organ at risk (OAR) in high-energy photon planning may help reduce plan quality variability by deriving patient-specific OAR goals prior to optimization. Such a tool may be useful for (a) meaningfully evaluating patient-specific plan quality and (b) supplying best theoretically achievable DVH goals, thus pushing the solution toward automatic Pareto optimality. This work introduces such a tool and validates it for clinical Head and Neck (HN) datasets. METHODS: To compute FDVH, first the targets are assigned uniform prescription doses, with no reference to any particular beam arrangement. A benchmark 3D dose built outside the targets is estimated using a series of energy-specific dose spread calculations reflecting observed properties of radiation distribution in media. For the patient, the calculation is performed on the heterogeneous dataset, taking into account the high- (penumbra driven) and low- (PDD and scatter-driven) gradient dose spreading. The former is driven mostly by target dose and surface shape, while the latter adds the dependence on target volume. This benchmark dose is used to produce the "best possible sparing" FDVH for an OAR, and based on it, progressively more easily achievable FDVH curves can be estimated. Validation was performed using test cylindrical geometries as well as 10 clinical HN datasets. For HN, VMAT plans were prepared with objectives of covering the primary and the secondary (bilateral elective neck) PTVs while addressing only one OAR at a time, with the goal of maximum sparing. The OARs were each parotid, the larynx, and the inferior pharyngeal constrictor. The difference in mean OAR doses was computed for the achieved vs. FDVHs, and the shapes of those DVHs were compared by means of the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). RESULTS: For all individually optimized HN OARs (N = 38), the average DSC between the planned DVHs and the FDVHs was 0.961 ± 0.018 (95% CI 0.955-0.967), with the corresponding average of mean OAR dose differences of 1.8 ± 5.8% (CI -0.1-3.6%). For realistic plans the achieved DVHs run no lower than the FDVHs, except when target coverage is compromised at the target/OAR interface. CONCLUSIONS: For the validation of VMAT plans, the OAR DVHs optimized one-at-a-time were similar in shape to and bound on the low side by the FDVHs, within the confines of planner's ability to precisely cover the target(s) with the prescription dose(s). The method is best suited for the OARs close to the target. This approach is fundamentally different from "knowledge-based planning" because it is (a) independent of the treatment plan and prior experience, and (b) it approximates, from nearly first principles, the lowest possible boundary of the OAR DVH, but not necessarily its actual shape in the presence of competing OAR sparing and target dose homogeneity objectives.