Machine learning automated treatment planning for online magnetic resonance guided adaptive radiotherapy of prostate cancer

Aly Khalifa , Jeff D. Winter , Tony Tadic , Thomas G. Purdie , Chris McIntosh
{"title":"Machine learning automated treatment planning for online magnetic resonance guided adaptive radiotherapy of prostate cancer","authors":"Aly Khalifa ,&nbsp;Jeff D. Winter ,&nbsp;Tony Tadic ,&nbsp;Thomas G. Purdie ,&nbsp;Chris McIntosh","doi":"10.1016/j.phro.2024.100649","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and purpose</h3><p>No best practices currently exist for achieving high quality radiation therapy (RT) treatment plan adaptation during magnetic resonance (MR) guided RT of prostate cancer. This study validates the use of machine learning (ML) automated RT treatment plan adaptation and benchmarks it against current clinical RT plan adaptation methods.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>We trained an atlas-based ML automated treatment planning model using reference MR RT treatment plans (42.7 Gy in 7 fractions) from 46 patients with prostate cancer previously treated at our institution. For a held-out test set of 38 patients, retrospectively generated ML RT plans were compared to clinical human-generated adaptive RT plans for all 266 fractions. Differences in dose-volume metrics and clinical objective pass rates were evaluated using Wilcoxon tests (p &lt; 0.05) and Exact McNemar tests (p &lt; 0.05), respectively.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Compared to clinical RT plans, ML RT plans significantly increased sparing and objective pass rates of the rectum, bladder, and left femur. The mean ± standard deviation of rectum D20 and D50 in ML RT plans were 2.5 ± 2.2 Gy and 1.6 ± 1.3 Gy lower than clinical RT plans, respectively, with 14 % higher pass rates; bladder D40 was 4.6 ± 2.9 Gy lower with a 20 % higher pass rate; and the left femur D5 was 0.8 ± 1.8 Gy lower with a 7 % higher pass rate.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>ML automated RT treatment plan adaptation increases robustness to interfractional anatomical changes compared to current clinical adaptive RT practices by increasing compliance to treatment objectives.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36850,"journal":{"name":"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology","volume":"32 ","pages":"Article 100649"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405631624001192/pdfft?md5=2171029966e3c5a6468365da4d535bfd&pid=1-s2.0-S2405631624001192-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405631624001192","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and purpose

No best practices currently exist for achieving high quality radiation therapy (RT) treatment plan adaptation during magnetic resonance (MR) guided RT of prostate cancer. This study validates the use of machine learning (ML) automated RT treatment plan adaptation and benchmarks it against current clinical RT plan adaptation methods.

Materials and methods

We trained an atlas-based ML automated treatment planning model using reference MR RT treatment plans (42.7 Gy in 7 fractions) from 46 patients with prostate cancer previously treated at our institution. For a held-out test set of 38 patients, retrospectively generated ML RT plans were compared to clinical human-generated adaptive RT plans for all 266 fractions. Differences in dose-volume metrics and clinical objective pass rates were evaluated using Wilcoxon tests (p < 0.05) and Exact McNemar tests (p < 0.05), respectively.

Results

Compared to clinical RT plans, ML RT plans significantly increased sparing and objective pass rates of the rectum, bladder, and left femur. The mean ± standard deviation of rectum D20 and D50 in ML RT plans were 2.5 ± 2.2 Gy and 1.6 ± 1.3 Gy lower than clinical RT plans, respectively, with 14 % higher pass rates; bladder D40 was 4.6 ± 2.9 Gy lower with a 20 % higher pass rate; and the left femur D5 was 0.8 ± 1.8 Gy lower with a 7 % higher pass rate.

Conclusions

ML automated RT treatment plan adaptation increases robustness to interfractional anatomical changes compared to current clinical adaptive RT practices by increasing compliance to treatment objectives.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
前列腺癌在线磁共振引导自适应放疗的机器学习自动治疗计划
背景和目的在磁共振(MR)引导的前列腺癌 RT 治疗过程中,目前尚无实现高质量放射治疗(RT)治疗计划适应性的最佳实践。本研究验证了机器学习(ML)自动 RT 治疗计划适应性的使用,并将其与当前的临床 RT 计划适应性方法进行了比较。材料和方法我们使用先前在本机构接受治疗的 46 名前列腺癌患者的参考 MR RT 治疗计划(42.7 Gy,分 7 次)训练了基于图集的 ML 自动治疗计划模型。在保留的 38 例患者测试集中,我们将回顾性生成的 ML RT 计划与临床人工生成的自适应 RT 计划进行了比较,结果显示所有 266 个分段都是如此。结果与临床 RT 计划相比,ML RT 计划显著提高了直肠、膀胱和左股骨的疏通率和客观通过率。与临床 RT 计划相比,ML RT 计划中直肠 D20 和 D50 的平均值(± 标准差)分别为 2.5 ± 2.2 Gy 和 1.6 ± 1.3 Gy,通过率提高了 14%;膀胱 D40 的平均值(± 标准差)为 4.6 ± 2.9 Gy,通过率提高了 20%;左股骨 D5 的平均值(± 标准差)为 0.结论与目前的临床适应性 RT 相比,自动 RT 治疗计划适应性可提高对治疗目标的依从性,从而增强对点阵间解剖变化的稳健性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology
Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology Physics and Astronomy-Radiation
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
18.90%
发文量
93
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Results of 2023 survey on the use of synthetic computed tomography for magnetic resonance Imaging-only radiotherapy: Current status and future steps Head and neck automatic multi-organ segmentation on Dual-Energy Computed Tomography Automatic segmentation for magnetic resonance imaging guided individual elective lymph node irradiation in head and neck cancer patients Development of a novel 3D-printed dynamic anthropomorphic thorax phantom for evaluation of four-dimensional computed tomography Technical feasibility of delivering a simultaneous integrated boost in partial breast irradiation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1