Background and purpose Treatment planning of radiotherapy is a time-consuming and planner dependent process that can be automated by dose prediction models. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of two machine learning models for breast cancer radiotherapy before possible clinical implementation. Materials and methods An in-house developed model, based on U-net architecture, and a contextual atlas regression forest (cARF) model integrated in the treatment planning software were trained. Obtained dose distributions were mimicked to create clinically deliverable plans. For training and validation, 90 patients were used, 15 patients were used for testing. Treatment plans were scored on predefined evaluation criteria and percent errors with respect to clinical dose were calculated for doses to planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs). Results The U-net plans before mimicking met all criteria for all patients, both models failed one evaluation criterion in three patients after mimicking. No significant differences (p < 0.05) were found between clinical and predicted U-net plans before mimicking. Doses to OARs in plans of both models differed significantly from clinical plans, but no clinically relevant differences were found. After mimicking, both models had a mean percent error within 1.5% for the average dose to PTV and OARs. The mean errors for maximum doses were higher, within 6.6%. Conclusions Differences between predicted doses to OARs of the models were small when compared to clinical plans, and not found to be clinically relevant. Both models show potential in automated treatment planning for breast cancer.

Background and purpose Treatment planning of radiotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer patients can be a time consuming process. Artificial intelligence based treatment planning could be used as a tool to speed up this process and maintain plan quality consistency. The purpose of this study was to create treatment plans for locally advanced breast cancer patients using a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN). Materials and methods Data of 60 patients treated for left-sided breast cancer was used with a training, validation and test split of 36/12/12, respectively. The in-house built CNN model was a hierarchically densely connected U-net (HD U-net). The inputs for the HD U-net were 2D distance maps of the relevant regions of interest. Dose predictions, generated by the HD U-net, were used for a mimicking algorithm in order to create clinically deliverable plans. Results Dose predictions were generated by the HD U-net and mimicked using a commercial treatment planning system. The predicted plans fulfilling all clinical goals while showing small (≤0.5 Gy) statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in the doses compared to the manual plans. The mimicked plans show statistically significant differences in the average doses for the heart and lung of ≤0.5 Gy and a reduced D2% of all PTVs. In total, ten of the twelve mimicked plans were clinically acceptable. Conclusions We created a CNN model which can generate clinically acceptable plans for left-sided locally advanced breast cancer patients. This model shows great potential to speed up the treatment planning process while maintaining consistent plan quality.

During breast cancer radiotherapy, sparing of healthy tissue is desired. The effect of automatic beam angle optimization and generic dose fall-off objectives on dose and normal tissue complication probabilities was studied. In all patients, dose to lungs and heart showed a mean reduction of 0.4 Gy (range 0.1-1.3 Gy) and 0.2 Gy (range − 0.2-0.7 Gy), respectively. These lower doses led to a statistically significant lower cumulative cardiac and lung cancer mortality risk. For smoking patients 40-45 years of age who continue to smoke, it would lead to a reduction from 3.2% ± 0.7% to 2.7% ± 0.6% (p < 0.001).

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) shows great potential to streamline the treatment planning process. However, its clinical adoption is slow due to the limited number of clinical evaluation studies and because often, the translation of the predicted dose distribution to a deliverable plan is lacking. This study evaluates two different, deliverable AI plans in terms of their clinical acceptability based on quantitative parameters and qualitative evaluation by four radiation oncologists. Methods For 20 left-sided node-negative breast cancer patients, treated with a prescribed dose of 40.05 Gy, using tangential beam intensity modulated radiotherapy, two model-based treatment plans were evaluated against the corresponding manual plan. The two models used were an in-house developed U-net model and a vendor-developed contextual atlas regression forest model (cARF). Radiation oncologists evaluated the clinical acceptability of each blinded plan and ranked plans according to preference. Furthermore, a comparison with the manual plan was made based on dose volume histogram parameters, clinical evaluation criteria and preparation time. Results The U-net model resulted in a higher average and maximum dose to the PTV (median difference 0.37 Gy and 0.47 Gy respectively) and a slightly higher mean heart dose (MHD) (0.01 Gy). The cARF model led to higher average and maximum doses to the PTV (0.30 and 0.39 Gy respectively) and a slightly higher MHD (0.02 Gy) and mean lung dose (MLD, 0.04 Gy). The maximum MHD/MLD difference was ≤ 0.5 Gy for both AI plans. Regardless of these dose differences, 90–95% of the AI plans were considered clinically acceptable versus 90% of the manual plans. Preferences varied between the radiation oncologists. Plan preparation time was comparable between the U-net model and the manual plan (287 s vs 253 s) while the cARF model took longer (471 s). When only considering user interaction, plan generation time was 121 s for the cARF model and 137 s for the U-net model. Conclusions Two AI models were used to generate deliverable plans for breast cancer patients, in a time-efficient manner, requiring minimal user interaction. Although the AI plans resulted in slightly higher doses overall, radiation oncologists considered 90–95% of the AI plans clinically acceptable.

No abstract