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 , Jeff D. Winter , Tony Tadic , Thomas G. Purdie , 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 < 0.05) and Exact McNemar tests (p < 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.