在口咽癌患者中临床实施深度学习稳健 IMPT 规划:盲法临床研究

IF 4.9 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY Radiotherapy and Oncology Pub Date : 2024-09-06 DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110522
Ilse G. van Bruggen , Marije van Dijk , Minke J. Brinkman-Akker , Fredrik Löfman , Johannes A. Langendijk , Stefan Both , E.W. Korevaar
{"title":"在口咽癌患者中临床实施深度学习稳健 IMPT 规划:盲法临床研究","authors":"Ilse G. van Bruggen ,&nbsp;Marije van Dijk ,&nbsp;Minke J. Brinkman-Akker ,&nbsp;Fredrik Löfman ,&nbsp;Johannes A. Langendijk ,&nbsp;Stefan Both ,&nbsp;E.W. Korevaar","doi":"10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110522","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and purpose</h3><p>This study aimed to evaluate the plan quality of our deep learning-based automated treatment planning method for robustly optimized intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans in patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC). The assessment was conducted through a retrospective and prospective study, blindly comparing manual plans with deep learning plans.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>A set of 95 OPC patients was split into training (n = 60), configuration (n = 10), test retrospective study (n = 10), and test prospective study (n = 15). Our deep learning optimization (DLO) method combines IMPT dose prediction using a deep learning model with a robust mimicking optimization algorithm. Dosimetrists manually adjusted the DLO plan for individual patients. In both studies, manual plans and manually adjusted deep learning (mDLO) plans were blindly assessed by a radiation oncologist, a dosimetrist, and a physicist, through visual inspection, clinical goal evaluation, and comparison of normal tissue complication probability values. mDLO plans were completed within an average time of 2.5 h. In comparison, the manual planning process typically took around 2 days.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In the retrospective study, in 10/10 (100%) patients, the mDLO plans were preferred, while in the prospective study, 9 out of 15 (60%) mDLO plans were preferred. In 4 out of the remaining 6 cases, the manual and mDLO plans were considered comparable in quality. Differences between manual and mDLO plans were limited.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This study showed a high preference for mDLO plans over manual IMPT plans, with 92% of cases considering mDLO plans comparable or superior in quality for OPC patients.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":21041,"journal":{"name":"Radiotherapy and Oncology","volume":"200 ","pages":"Article 110522"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016781402403500X/pdfft?md5=756f01872c837c89ad1fdbd1c8e8830f&pid=1-s2.0-S016781402403500X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical implementation of deep learning robust IMPT planning in oropharyngeal cancer patients: A blinded clinical study\",\"authors\":\"Ilse G. van Bruggen ,&nbsp;Marije van Dijk ,&nbsp;Minke J. Brinkman-Akker ,&nbsp;Fredrik Löfman ,&nbsp;Johannes A. Langendijk ,&nbsp;Stefan Both ,&nbsp;E.W. Korevaar\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110522\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background and purpose</h3><p>This study aimed to evaluate the plan quality of our deep learning-based automated treatment planning method for robustly optimized intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans in patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC). The assessment was conducted through a retrospective and prospective study, blindly comparing manual plans with deep learning plans.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>A set of 95 OPC patients was split into training (n = 60), configuration (n = 10), test retrospective study (n = 10), and test prospective study (n = 15). Our deep learning optimization (DLO) method combines IMPT dose prediction using a deep learning model with a robust mimicking optimization algorithm. Dosimetrists manually adjusted the DLO plan for individual patients. In both studies, manual plans and manually adjusted deep learning (mDLO) plans were blindly assessed by a radiation oncologist, a dosimetrist, and a physicist, through visual inspection, clinical goal evaluation, and comparison of normal tissue complication probability values. mDLO plans were completed within an average time of 2.5 h. In comparison, the manual planning process typically took around 2 days.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In the retrospective study, in 10/10 (100%) patients, the mDLO plans were preferred, while in the prospective study, 9 out of 15 (60%) mDLO plans were preferred. In 4 out of the remaining 6 cases, the manual and mDLO plans were considered comparable in quality. Differences between manual and mDLO plans were limited.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This study showed a high preference for mDLO plans over manual IMPT plans, with 92% of cases considering mDLO plans comparable or superior in quality for OPC patients.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21041,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Radiotherapy and Oncology\",\"volume\":\"200 \",\"pages\":\"Article 110522\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016781402403500X/pdfft?md5=756f01872c837c89ad1fdbd1c8e8830f&pid=1-s2.0-S016781402403500X-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Radiotherapy and Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016781402403500X\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiotherapy and Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016781402403500X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:本研究旨在评估我们基于深度学习的自动治疗计划方法的计划质量,该方法可用于口咽癌(OPC)患者的稳健优化强度调制质子治疗(IMPT)计划。评估是通过一项回顾性和前瞻性研究进行的,对人工计划和深度学习计划进行了盲比:一组 95 例口咽癌患者被分为训练(n = 60)、配置(n = 10)、测试回顾性研究(n = 10)和测试前瞻性研究(n = 15)。我们的深度学习优化(DLO)方法将使用深度学习模型的 IMPT 剂量预测与鲁棒模拟优化算法相结合。剂量测定师为每位患者手动调整 DLO 计划。在这两项研究中,手动计划和手动调整的深度学习(mDLO)计划均由一名放射肿瘤学家、一名剂量测定师和一名物理学家通过目测、临床目标评估和正常组织并发症概率值比较进行盲法评估。相比之下,人工规划过程通常需要 2 天左右:在回顾性研究中,10/10(100%)例患者首选 mDLO 方案,而在前瞻性研究中,15 例患者中有 9 例(60%)首选 mDLO 方案。在其余 6 个病例中,有 4 个病例认为人工和 mDLO 方案的质量相当。人工和 mDLO 方案之间的差异有限:这项研究表明,与手动 IMPT 方案相比,人们更倾向于使用 mDLO 方案,92% 的病例认为 mDLO 方案在质量上与 OPC 患者的方案相当或更优。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Clinical implementation of deep learning robust IMPT planning in oropharyngeal cancer patients: A blinded clinical study

Background and purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the plan quality of our deep learning-based automated treatment planning method for robustly optimized intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans in patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC). The assessment was conducted through a retrospective and prospective study, blindly comparing manual plans with deep learning plans.

Materials and methods

A set of 95 OPC patients was split into training (n = 60), configuration (n = 10), test retrospective study (n = 10), and test prospective study (n = 15). Our deep learning optimization (DLO) method combines IMPT dose prediction using a deep learning model with a robust mimicking optimization algorithm. Dosimetrists manually adjusted the DLO plan for individual patients. In both studies, manual plans and manually adjusted deep learning (mDLO) plans were blindly assessed by a radiation oncologist, a dosimetrist, and a physicist, through visual inspection, clinical goal evaluation, and comparison of normal tissue complication probability values. mDLO plans were completed within an average time of 2.5 h. In comparison, the manual planning process typically took around 2 days.

Results

In the retrospective study, in 10/10 (100%) patients, the mDLO plans were preferred, while in the prospective study, 9 out of 15 (60%) mDLO plans were preferred. In 4 out of the remaining 6 cases, the manual and mDLO plans were considered comparable in quality. Differences between manual and mDLO plans were limited.

Conclusion

This study showed a high preference for mDLO plans over manual IMPT plans, with 92% of cases considering mDLO plans comparable or superior in quality for OPC patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Radiotherapy and Oncology
Radiotherapy and Oncology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
10.50%
发文量
2445
审稿时长
45 days
期刊介绍: Radiotherapy and Oncology publishes papers describing original research as well as review articles. It covers areas of interest relating to radiation oncology. This includes: clinical radiotherapy, combined modality treatment, translational studies, epidemiological outcomes, imaging, dosimetry, and radiation therapy planning, experimental work in radiobiology, chemobiology, hyperthermia and tumour biology, as well as data science in radiation oncology and physics aspects relevant to oncology.Papers on more general aspects of interest to the radiation oncologist including chemotherapy, surgery and immunology are also published.
期刊最新文献
Evaluating ChatGPT's competency in radiation oncology: A comprehensive assessment across clinical scenarios. Hypofractionated accelerated radiation dose-painting (HARD) improves outcomes in unresected soft-tissue sarcoma. Efficacy of radiotherapy for bone metastasis in breast cancer patients treated with cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors. An update to the American Radium Society's appropriate use criteria of lower grade Gliomas: Integration of IDH inhibitors. Population based audit of heart radiation doses in 6925 high-risk breast cancer patients from the Danish breast cancer group RT Nation study.
×
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