Quantitative analysis of the factors which affect the interpatient organ‐at‐risk dose sparing variation in IMRT plans

PurposeTo test if a RapidPlan DVH estimation model and its training plans can be improved interactively through a closed‐loop evolution process.Methods and materialsEighty‐one manual plans (P0) that were used to configure an initial rectal RapidPlan model (M0) were reoptimized using M0 (closed‐loop), yielding 81 P1 plans. The 75 improved P1 (P1+) and the remaining 6 P0 were used to configure model M1. The 81 training plans were reoptimized again using M1, producing 23 P2 plans that were superior to both their P0 and P1 forms (P2+). Hence, the knowledge base of model M2 composed of 6 P0, 52 P1+, and 23 P2+. Models were tested dosimetrically on 30 VMAT validation cases (Pv) that were not used for training, yielding Pv(M0), Pv(M1), and Pv(M2) respectively. The 30 Pv were also optimized by M2_new as trained by the library of M2 and 30 Pv(M0).ResultsBased on comparable target dose coverage, the first closed‐loop reoptimization significantly (P < 0.01) reduced the 81 training plans’ mean dose to femoral head, urinary bladder, and small bowel by 2.65 Gy/15.63%, 2.06 Gy/8.11%, and 1.47 Gy/6.31% respectively, which were further reduced significantly (P < 0.01) in the second closed‐loop reoptimization by 0.04 Gy/0.28%, 0.18 Gy/0.77%, 0.22 Gy/1.01% respectively. However, open‐loop VMAT validations displayed more complex and intertwined plan quality changes: mean dose to urinary bladder and small bowel decreased monotonically using M1 (by 0.34 Gy/1.47%, 0.25 Gy/1.13%) and M2 (by 0.36 Gy/1.56%, 0.30 Gy/1.36%) than using M0. However, mean dose to femoral head increased by 0.81 Gy/6.64% (M1) and 0.91 Gy/7.46% (M2) than using M0. The overfitting problem was relieved by applying model M2_new.ConclusionsThe RapidPlan model and its constituent plans can improve each other interactively through a closed‐loop evolution process. Incorporating new patients into the original training library can improve the RapidPlan model and the upcoming plans interactively.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…The RapidPlan module in Eclipse treatment planning system of version 13.5 or later (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) has commercialized the knowledge‐based solution18, 19 and displayed good compatibility across patient orientations, treatment techniques, and systems 20, 21…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An interactive plan and model evolution method for knowledge‐based pelvic VMAT planning

Wang

Huang

et al. 2018

“…Anatomical factors, such as distance between structures, can have a significant impact on treatment planning goals. In fact, factors such as distance between PTV and a surrounding OAR, as well as the volume overlap between PTV and OAR, have been identified as significant predictors of DVH goals 16. In addition, radiobiological calculations are performed based on equivalent uniform dose (EUD) as described by Niemierko 17…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

DVH Analytics: A DVH database for clinicians and researchers

Cutright

Gopalakrishnan

Roy

et al. 2018

In this study, we build a vendor‐agnostic software application capable of importing and analyzing non‐image‐based DICOM files for various radiation treatment modalities (i.e., DICOM RT Dose, RT Structure, and RT Plan files). Dose‐volume histogram (DVH) and planning data are imported into a SQL database, and methods are provided to manage, edit, view, and download data. Furthermore, the software provides various analytical tools for plan evaluations, plan comparisons, benchmarking, and plan outcome predictions. DVH Analytics is developed using Python, including libraries such as pydicom, dicompyler, psycopg2, SciPy, Statsmodels, and Bokeh for parsing DICOM files, computing DVHs, communicating with a PostgreSQL database, performing statistical analyses, and creating a web‐based user interface. This software is open‐source and compatible with Windows, Mac OS, and Linux. For proof‐of‐concept, a database with over 3,000 DVHs from a single physician's head & neck practice was built. From these data, differences in means, correlations, and temporal trends in dose to multiple organs‐at‐risk (OARs) were observed. Furthermore, an example of the predictive regression tool is reported, where a model was constructed to predict maximum dose to brainstem based on minimum distance from planning target volume (PTV) and treatment beam source‐to‐skin distance (SSD). With DVH Analytics, we have developed a free, open‐source software program to parse, organize, and analyze non‐image‐based DICOM data for use in a radiation oncology setting. Furthermore, this software can be used to generate statistical models for the purposes of quality control or outcome predictions and correlations.

“…These steps can range from the estimation of field direction,1 weights of optimization objectives,2 and even dose distribution 3, 4. The majority of KBP work, however, has focused on estimating dose–volume histograms (DVHs)5, 6, 7, 8, 9 which are commonly used to evaluate plan quality and guide the inverse planning process.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yuan et al. proved that it is possible to quantify the complex relationship that different factors have on the final shape of the DVH 9. This group also used their tool to exchange models that summarize plan creation strategies among different institutions, hence providing a means to standardize treatment planning 13, 14.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Creation of knowledge‐based planning models intended for large scale distribution: Minimizing the effect of outlier plans

Aviles

Marcos²,

Sasaki

et al. 2018

Knowledge‐based planning (KBP) can be used to estimate dose–volume histograms (DVHs) of organs at risk (OAR) using models. The task of model creation, however, can result in estimates with differing accuracy; particularly when outlier plans are not properly addressed. This work used RapidPlan™ to create models for the prostate and head and neck intended for large‐scale distribution. Potential outlier plans were identified by means of regression analysis scatter plots, Cook's distance, coefficient of determination, and the chi‐squared test. Outlier plans were identified as falling into three categories: geometric, dosimetric, and over‐fitting outliers. The models were validated by comparing DVHs estimated by the model with those from a separate and independent set of clinical plans. The estimated DVHs were also used as optimization objectives during inverse planning. The analysis tools lead us to identify as many as 7 geometric, 8 dosimetric, and 20 over‐fitting outliers in the raw models. Geometric and over‐fitting outliers were removed while the dosimetric outliers were replaced after re‐planning. Model validation was done by comparing the DVHs at 50%, 85%, and 99% of the maximum dose for each OAR (denoted as V50, V85, and V99) and agreed within −2% to 4% for the three metrics for the final prostate model. In terms of the head and neck model, the estimated DVHs agreed from −2.0% to 5.1% at V50, 0.1% to 7.1% at V85, and 0.1% to 7.6% at V99. The process used to create these models improved the accuracy for the pharyngeal constrictor DVH estimation where one plan was originally over‐estimated by more than twice. In conclusion, our results demonstrate that KBP models should be carefully created since their accuracy could be negatively affected by outlier plans. Outlier plans can be addressed by removing them from the model and re‐planning.