Casey L. Johnson , Shaakir Hasan , Sheng Huang , Haibo Lin , Daniel Gorovets , Andy Shim , Thomas Apgar , Francis Yu , Pingfang Tsai
{"title":"推进基于知识的强度调制质子计划,用于高危前列腺癌症的适应性治疗。","authors":"Casey L. Johnson , Shaakir Hasan , Sheng Huang , Haibo Lin , Daniel Gorovets , Andy Shim , Thomas Apgar , Francis Yu , Pingfang Tsai","doi":"10.1016/j.meddos.2023.10.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>To assess the performance of a knowledge-based planning (KBP) model for generating intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatment plans as part of an adaptive radiotherapy (ART) strategy for patients with high-risk prostate cancer. A knowledge-based planning (KBP) model for proton adaptive treatment plan generation was developed based on thirty patient treatment plans utilizing RapidPlan<sup>TM</sup> PT (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). The model was subsequently validated using an additional eleven patient cases. All patients in the study were administered a prescribed dose of 70.2 Gy to the prostate and seminal vesicle (CTV70.2), along with 46.8 Gy to the pelvic lymph nodes (CTV46.8) through simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique. To assess the quality of the validation knowledge-based proton plans (KBPPs), target coverage and organ-at-risk (OAR) dose-volume constraints were compared against those of clinically used expert plans using paired <em>t</em>-tests. The KBP model training statistics (<em>R<sup>2</sup></em>) (mean ± SD, 0.763 ± 0.167, range, 0.406 to 0.907) and χ² values (1.162 ± 0.0867, 1.039-1.253) indicate acceptable model training quality. Moreover, the average total treatment planning optimization and calculation time for adaptive plan generation is approximately 10 minutes. The CTV70.2 D<sub>98%</sub> for the KBPPs (mean ± SD, 69.1 ± 0.08 Gy) and expert plans (69.9 ± 0.04 Gy) shows a significant difference (<em>p</em> < 0.05) but are both within 1.1 Gy of the prescribed dose which is clinically acceptable. While the maximum dose for some organs-at-risk (OARs) such as the bladder and rectum is generally higher in the KBPPs, the doses still fall within clinical constraints. Among all the OARs, most of them received comparable results to the expert plan, except the cauda equina D<sub>max</sub>, which shows statistical significance and was lower in the KBPPs than in expert plans (48.5 ± 0.06 Gy <em>vs</em> 49.3 ± 0.05 Gy). The generated KBPPs were clinically comparable to manually crafted plans by expert treatment planners. The adaptive plan generation process was completed within an acceptable timeframe, offering a quick same-day adaptive treatment option. Our study supports the integration of KBP as a crucial component of an ART strategy, including maintaining plan consistency, improving quality, and enhancing efficiency. This advancement in speed and adaptability promises more precise treatment in proton ART.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49837,"journal":{"name":"Medical Dosimetry","volume":"49 1","pages":"Pages 19-24"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0958394723000948/pdfft?md5=211eea6736e728dd9949828a2aacedcc&pid=1-s2.0-S0958394723000948-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Advancing knowledge-based intensity modulated proton planning for adaptive treatment of high-risk prostate cancer\",\"authors\":\"Casey L. Johnson , Shaakir Hasan , Sheng Huang , Haibo Lin , Daniel Gorovets , Andy Shim , Thomas Apgar , Francis Yu , Pingfang Tsai\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.meddos.2023.10.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>To assess the performance of a knowledge-based planning (KBP) model for generating intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatment plans as part of an adaptive radiotherapy (ART) strategy for patients with high-risk prostate cancer. A knowledge-based planning (KBP) model for proton adaptive treatment plan generation was developed based on thirty patient treatment plans utilizing RapidPlan<sup>TM</sup> PT (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). The model was subsequently validated using an additional eleven patient cases. All patients in the study were administered a prescribed dose of 70.2 Gy to the prostate and seminal vesicle (CTV70.2), along with 46.8 Gy to the pelvic lymph nodes (CTV46.8) through simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique. To assess the quality of the validation knowledge-based proton plans (KBPPs), target coverage and organ-at-risk (OAR) dose-volume constraints were compared against those of clinically used expert plans using paired <em>t</em>-tests. The KBP model training statistics (<em>R<sup>2</sup></em>) (mean ± SD, 0.763 ± 0.167, range, 0.406 to 0.907) and χ² values (1.162 ± 0.0867, 1.039-1.253) indicate acceptable model training quality. Moreover, the average total treatment planning optimization and calculation time for adaptive plan generation is approximately 10 minutes. The CTV70.2 D<sub>98%</sub> for the KBPPs (mean ± SD, 69.1 ± 0.08 Gy) and expert plans (69.9 ± 0.04 Gy) shows a significant difference (<em>p</em> < 0.05) but are both within 1.1 Gy of the prescribed dose which is clinically acceptable. While the maximum dose for some organs-at-risk (OARs) such as the bladder and rectum is generally higher in the KBPPs, the doses still fall within clinical constraints. Among all the OARs, most of them received comparable results to the expert plan, except the cauda equina D<sub>max</sub>, which shows statistical significance and was lower in the KBPPs than in expert plans (48.5 ± 0.06 Gy <em>vs</em> 49.3 ± 0.05 Gy). The generated KBPPs were clinically comparable to manually crafted plans by expert treatment planners. The adaptive plan generation process was completed within an acceptable timeframe, offering a quick same-day adaptive treatment option. Our study supports the integration of KBP as a crucial component of an ART strategy, including maintaining plan consistency, improving quality, and enhancing efficiency. This advancement in speed and adaptability promises more precise treatment in proton ART.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49837,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Dosimetry\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages 19-24\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0958394723000948/pdfft?md5=211eea6736e728dd9949828a2aacedcc&pid=1-s2.0-S0958394723000948-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Dosimetry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0958394723000948\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Dosimetry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0958394723000948","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
评估基于知识的计划(KBP)模型的性能,该模型用于生成强度调制质子治疗(IMPT)治疗计划,作为高危前列腺癌症患者适应性放射治疗(ART)策略的一部分。基于30名患者的治疗计划,利用RapidPlanTM PT(Varian Medical Systems,Palo Alto,CA)开发了基于知识的质子自适应治疗计划生成(KBP)模型。该模型随后使用另外11个患者案例进行了验证。研究中的所有患者都通过同时综合增强(SIB)技术向前列腺和精囊(CTV70.2)给予70.2 Gy的处方剂量,向盆腔淋巴结(CTV46.8)给予46.8 Gy的剂量。为了评估基于验证知识的质子计划(KBPP)的质量,使用配对t检验将目标覆盖率和危险器官(OAR)剂量体积限制与临床使用的专家计划进行比较。KBP模型训练统计数据(R2)(平均值±SD,0.763±0.167,范围0.406至0.907)和χ²值(1.162±0.0867,1.039-1.253)表明模型训练质量可接受。此外,自适应计划生成的平均总治疗计划优化和计算时间约为10分钟。KBPP的CTV70.2 D98%(平均值±SD,69.1±0.08 Gy)和专家计划(69.9±0.04 Gy)显示出显著差异(p<0.05),但均在临床可接受的处方剂量的1.1 Gy以内。虽然KBPP中一些高危器官(如膀胱和直肠)的最大剂量通常更高,但剂量仍在临床限制范围内。在所有OAR中,除马尾Dmax外,大多数OAR都获得了与专家计划相当的结果,马尾Dmax显示出统计学意义,KBPP中的结果低于专家计划(48.5±0.06 Gy vs 49.3±0.05 Gy)。生成的KBPP在临床上与专家治疗规划人员手工制定的计划具有可比性。自适应计划生成过程在可接受的时间内完成,提供了当天快速的自适应治疗选项。我们的研究支持将KBP作为ART战略的关键组成部分进行整合,包括保持计划的一致性、提高质量和提高效率。这种速度和适应性的进步有望在质子抗逆转录病毒疗法中获得更精确的治疗。
Advancing knowledge-based intensity modulated proton planning for adaptive treatment of high-risk prostate cancer
To assess the performance of a knowledge-based planning (KBP) model for generating intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatment plans as part of an adaptive radiotherapy (ART) strategy for patients with high-risk prostate cancer. A knowledge-based planning (KBP) model for proton adaptive treatment plan generation was developed based on thirty patient treatment plans utilizing RapidPlanTM PT (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). The model was subsequently validated using an additional eleven patient cases. All patients in the study were administered a prescribed dose of 70.2 Gy to the prostate and seminal vesicle (CTV70.2), along with 46.8 Gy to the pelvic lymph nodes (CTV46.8) through simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique. To assess the quality of the validation knowledge-based proton plans (KBPPs), target coverage and organ-at-risk (OAR) dose-volume constraints were compared against those of clinically used expert plans using paired t-tests. The KBP model training statistics (R2) (mean ± SD, 0.763 ± 0.167, range, 0.406 to 0.907) and χ² values (1.162 ± 0.0867, 1.039-1.253) indicate acceptable model training quality. Moreover, the average total treatment planning optimization and calculation time for adaptive plan generation is approximately 10 minutes. The CTV70.2 D98% for the KBPPs (mean ± SD, 69.1 ± 0.08 Gy) and expert plans (69.9 ± 0.04 Gy) shows a significant difference (p < 0.05) but are both within 1.1 Gy of the prescribed dose which is clinically acceptable. While the maximum dose for some organs-at-risk (OARs) such as the bladder and rectum is generally higher in the KBPPs, the doses still fall within clinical constraints. Among all the OARs, most of them received comparable results to the expert plan, except the cauda equina Dmax, which shows statistical significance and was lower in the KBPPs than in expert plans (48.5 ± 0.06 Gy vs 49.3 ± 0.05 Gy). The generated KBPPs were clinically comparable to manually crafted plans by expert treatment planners. The adaptive plan generation process was completed within an acceptable timeframe, offering a quick same-day adaptive treatment option. Our study supports the integration of KBP as a crucial component of an ART strategy, including maintaining plan consistency, improving quality, and enhancing efficiency. This advancement in speed and adaptability promises more precise treatment in proton ART.
期刊介绍:
Medical Dosimetry, the official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists, is the key source of information on new developments for the medical dosimetrist. Practical and comprehensive in coverage, the journal features original contributions and review articles by medical dosimetrists, oncologists, physicists, and radiation therapy technologists on clinical applications and techniques of external beam, interstitial, intracavitary and intraluminal irradiation in cancer management. Articles dealing primarily with physics will be reviewed by a specially appointed team of experts in the field.