Sensitivity of dose-volume indices to computation settings in high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy treatment plan evaluation.

PURPOSE: To investigate the variation in computed dose-volume (DV) indices for high-dose-rate (HDR) prostate brachytherapy that can result from typical differences in computation settings in treatment planning systems (TPSs). METHODS: Five factors were taken into account: number of dose-calculation points, radioactive source description, interpolation between delineated contours, intersections between delineated organ contours, and organ shape at the top and bottom contour using either full or partial slice thickness. Using in-house developed software, the DV indices of the treatment plans of 26 patients were calculated with different settings, and compared to a baseline setting that closely followed the default settings of the TPS used in our medical center. Studied organs were prostate and seminal vesicles, denoted as targets, and bladder, rectum, and urethra, denoted as organs at risk (OARs), which were delineated on MRI scans with a 3.3 mm slice thickness. RESULTS: When sampling a fixed number of points in each organ, in order to achieve a width of the 95% confidence interval over all patients of the DV indices of 1% or less, only 32,000 points had to be sampled per target, but 256,000 points had to be sampled per OAR. For the remaining factors, DV indices changed up to 0.4% for rectum, 1.3% for urethra, and 2.6% for prostate. DV indices of the bladder changed especially if the high-dose-region was (partly) located at the most caudal contour, up to 8.5%, and DV indices of the vesicles changed especially if there were few delineated contours, up to 9.8%, both due to the use of full slice thickness for the top and bottom contour. CONCLUSIONS: The values of DV indices used in prostate HDR brachytherapy treatment planning are influenced by the computation settings in a TPS, especially at the most caudal part of the bladder, as well as in the seminal vesicles.

Towards artificial intelligence-based automated treatment planning in clinical practice: A prospective study of the first clinical experiences in high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: This prospective study evaluates our first clinical experiences with the novel ``BRachytherapy via artificial Intelligent GOMEA-Heuristic based Treatment planning'' (BRIGHT) applied to high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between March 2020 and October 2021, 14 prostate cancer patients were treated in our center with a 15Gy HDR-brachytherapy boost. BRIGHT was used for bi-objective treatment plan optimization and selection of the most desirable plans from a coverage-sparing trade-off curve. Selected BRIGHT plans were imported into the commercial treatment planning system Oncentra Brachy . In Oncentra Brachy a dose distribution comparison was performed for clinical plan choice, followed by manual fine-tuning of the preferred BRIGHT plan when deemed necessary. The reasons for plan selection, clinical plan choice, and fine-tuning, as well as process speed were monitored. For each patient, the dose-volume parameters of the (fine-tuned) clinical plan were evaluated. RESULTS: In all patients, BRIGHT provided solutions satisfying all protocol values for coverage and sparing. In four patients not all dose-volume criteria of the clinical plan were satisfied after manual fine-tuning. Detailed information on tumour coverage, dose-distribution, dwell time pattern, and insight provided by the patient-specific trade-off curve, were used for clinical plan choice. Median time spent on treatment planning was 42 min, consisting of 16 min plan optimization and selection, and 26 min undesirable process steps. CONCLUSIONS: BRIGHT is implemented in our clinic and provides automated prostate high-dose-rate brachytherapy planning with trade-off based plan selection. Based on our experience, additional optimization aims need to be implemented to further improve direct clinical applicability of treatment plans and process efficiency.

Robust optimization for HDR prostate brachytherapy applied to organ reconstruction uncertainty.

PURPOSE: Recently, we introduced a bi-objective optimization approach based on dose-volume indices to automatically create clinically good HDR prostate brachytherapy plans. To calculate dose-volume indices, a reconstruction algorithm is used to determine the 3D organ shape from 2D contours, inevitably containing settings that influence the result. We augment the optimization approach to quickly find plans that are robust to differences in 3D reconstruction. METHODS: Studied reconstruction settings were: interpolation between delineated organ contours, overlap between contours, and organ shape at the top and bottom contour. Two options for each setting yields 8 possible 3D organ reconstructions per patient, over which the robust model defines minimax optimization. For the original model, settings were based on our treatment planning system. Both models were tested on data of 26 patients and compared by re-evaluating selected optimized plans both in the original model (1 organ reconstruction, the difference determines the cost), and in the robust model (8 organ reconstructions, the difference determines the benefit). RESULTS: Robust optimization increased the run time from 3 to 6 min. The median cost for robust optimization as observed in the original model was -0.25% in the dose-volume indices with a range of [-0.01%, -1.03%]. The median benefit of robust optimization as observed in the robust model was 0.93% with a range of [0.19%, 4.16%]. For 4 patients, selected plans that appeared good when optimized in the original model, violated the clinical protocol with more than 1% when considering different settings. This was not the case for robustly optimized plans. CONCLUSIONS: Plans of high quality, irrespective of 3D organ reconstruction settings, can be obtained using our robust optimization approach. With its limited effect on total runtime, our approach therefore offers a way to account for dosimetry uncertainties that result from choices in organ reconstruction settings that is viable in clinical practice.

Bi-objective optimization of catheter positions for high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: Bi-objective simultaneous optimization of catheter positions and dwell times for high-dose-rate (HDR) prostate brachytherapy, based directly on dose-volume indices, has shown promising results. However, optimization with the state-of-the-art evolutionary algorithm MO-RV-GOMEA so far required several hours of runtime, and resulting catheter positions were not always clinically feasible. The aim of this study is to extend the optimization model and apply GPU parallelization to achieve clinically acceptable computation times. The resulting optimization procedure is compared with a previously introduced method based solely on geometric criteria, the adapted Centroidal Voronoi Tessellations (CVT) algorithm. METHODS: Bi-objective simultaneous optimization was performed with a GPU-parallelized version of MO-RV-GOMEA. This optimization of catheter positions and dwell times was retrospectively applied to the data of 26 patients previously treated with HDR prostate brachytherapy for 8-16 catheters (steps of 2). Optimization of catheter positions using CVT was performed in seconds, after which optimization of only the dwell times using MO-RV-GOMEA was performed in 1 min. RESULTS: Simultaneous optimization of catheter positions and dwell times using MO-RV-GOMEA was performed in 5 min. For 16 down to 8 catheters (steps of 2), MO-RV-GOMEA found plans satisfying the planning-aims for 20, 20, 18, 14, and 11 out of the 26 patients, respectively. CVT achieved this for 19, 17, 13, 9, and 2 patients, respectively. The P-value for the difference between MO-RV-GOMEA and CVT was 0.023 for 16 catheters, 0.005 for 14 catheters, and <0.001 for 12, 10, and 8 catheters. CONCLUSIONS: With bi-objective simultaneous optimization on a GPU, high-quality catheter positions can now be obtained within 5 min, which is clinically acceptable, but slower than CVT. For 16 catheters, the difference between MO-RV-GOMEA and CVT is clinically irrelevant. For 14 catheters and less, MO-RV-GOMEA outperforms CVT in finding plans satisfying all planning-aims.