Automated Robust Planning for IMPT in Oropharyngeal Cancer Patients Using Machine Learning

Ilse G van Bruggen; Merle Huiskes; Suzanne P M de Vette; Mats Holmström; Johannes A Langendijk; Stefan Both; Roel G J Kierkels; Erik W Korevaar

doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.12.004

Automated Robust Planning for IMPT in Oropharyngeal Cancer Patients Using Machine Learning

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2023 Apr 1;115(5):1283-1290. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.12.004. Epub 2022 Dec 16.

Authors

Ilse G van Bruggen¹, Merle Huiskes², Suzanne P M de Vette², Mats Holmström³, Johannes A Langendijk², Stefan Both², Roel G J Kierkels⁴, Erik W Korevaar²

Affiliations

¹ Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. Electronic address: i.g.van.bruggen@umcg.nl.
² Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
³ RaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden.
⁴ Radiotherapiegroep, Deventer, the Netherlands.

PMID: 36535432
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.12.004

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate an automated treatment planning method for robustly optimized intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans for oropharyngeal carcinoma patients and to compare the results with manually optimized robust IMPT plans.

Methods and materials: An atlas regression forest-based machine learning (ML) model for dose prediction was trained on CT scans, contours, and dose distributions of robust IMPT plans of 88 oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) patients. The ML model was combined with a robust voxel and dose volume histogram-based dose mimicking optimization algorithm for 21 perturbed scenarios to generate a machine-deliverable plan from the predicted dose distribution. Machine learning optimization (MLO) configuration was performed using a cross-validation approach with 3 × 8 tuning patients and comprised of adjustments to the mimicking optimization, to generate higher-quality MLO plans. Independent testing of the MLO algorithm was performed with another 25 patients. Plan quality of clinical and MLO plans was evaluated by the clinical target volume (D98% voxel-wise minimum dose >94%), organ at risk (OAR) doses, and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) (sum (Σ) of grade-2 and grade-3 dysphagia and xerostomia).

Results: Adequate robust target coverage was achieved in 24/25 clinical plans and in 23/25 MLO plans in the primary clinical target volume (CTV). In the elective CTV, 22/25 clinical plans and 24/25 MLO plans passed the robust target coverage evaluation threshold. The MLO average Σgrade 2 and Σgrade 3 NTCPs were comparable to the clinical plans (Σgrade 2 NTCPs: clinical 47.5% vs MLO 48.4%, Σgrade 3 NTCPs: clinical 11.9% vs MLO 12.3%). Significant increases in OAR average doses in MLO plans were found in the pharynx constrictor muscles (163 cGy, P = .002) and cervical esophagus (265 cGy, P = .002). The MLO plans were created within 45 minutes.

Conclusion: This study showed that automated MLO planning can generate robustly optimized MLO plans with quality comparable to clinical plans in OPC patients.

MeSH terms

Humans
Organs at Risk / diagnostic imaging
Oropharyngeal Neoplasms* / diagnostic imaging
Oropharyngeal Neoplasms* / radiotherapy
Proton Therapy* / methods
Radiotherapy Dosage
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted / methods
Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated* / methods
Xerostomia*