Multi-institutional evaluation of a Pareto navigation guided automated radiotherapy planning solution for prostate cancer
Abstract Background Current automated planning solutions are calibrated using trial and error or machine learning on historical datasets. Neither method allows for the intuitive exploration of differing trade-off options during calibration, which may aid in ensuring automated solutions align with cl...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2024-04-01
|
| Series: | Radiation Oncology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-024-02404-x |
| _version_ | 1797209243760197632 |
|---|---|
| author | Philip A Wheeler Nicholas S West Richard Powis Rhydian Maggs Michael Chu Rachel A Pearson Nick Willis Bartlomiej Kurec Katie L. Reed David G. Lewis John Staffurth Emiliano Spezi Anthony E. Millin |
| author_facet | Philip A Wheeler Nicholas S West Richard Powis Rhydian Maggs Michael Chu Rachel A Pearson Nick Willis Bartlomiej Kurec Katie L. Reed David G. Lewis John Staffurth Emiliano Spezi Anthony E. Millin |
| author_sort | Philip A Wheeler |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Current automated planning solutions are calibrated using trial and error or machine learning on historical datasets. Neither method allows for the intuitive exploration of differing trade-off options during calibration, which may aid in ensuring automated solutions align with clinical preference. Pareto navigation provides this functionality and offers a potential calibration alternative. The purpose of this study was to validate an automated radiotherapy planning solution with a novel multi-dimensional Pareto navigation calibration interface across two external institutions for prostate cancer. Methods The implemented ‘Pareto Guided Automated Planning’ (PGAP) methodology was developed in RayStation using scripting and consisted of a Pareto navigation calibration interface built upon a ‘Protocol Based Automatic Iterative Optimisation’ planning framework. 30 previous patients were randomly selected by each institution (IA and IB), 10 for calibration and 20 for validation. Utilising the Pareto navigation interface automated protocols were calibrated to the institutions’ clinical preferences. A single automated plan (VMATAuto) was generated for each validation patient with plan quality compared against the previously treated clinical plan (VMATClinical) both quantitatively, using a range of DVH metrics, and qualitatively through blind review at the external institution. Results PGAP led to marked improvements across the majority of rectal dose metrics, with Dmean reduced by 3.7 Gy and 1.8 Gy for IA and IB respectively (p < 0.001). For bladder, results were mixed with low and intermediate dose metrics reduced for IB but increased for IA. Differences, whilst statistically significant (p < 0.05) were small and not considered clinically relevant. The reduction in rectum dose was not at the expense of PTV coverage (D98% was generally improved with VMATAuto), but was somewhat detrimental to PTV conformality. The prioritisation of rectum over conformality was however aligned with preferences expressed during calibration and was a key driver in both institutions demonstrating a clear preference towards VMATAuto, with 31/40 considered superior to VMATClinical upon blind review. Conclusions PGAP enabled intuitive adaptation of automated protocols to an institution’s planning aims and yielded plans more congruent with the institution’s clinical preference than the locally produced manual clinical plans. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-24T09:51:36Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-e896d6b30ee2484b927251cdf6a63ef2 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1748-717X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-24T09:51:36Z |
| publishDate | 2024-04-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Radiation Oncology |
| spelling | doaj.art-e896d6b30ee2484b927251cdf6a63ef22024-04-14T11:23:45ZengBMCRadiation Oncology1748-717X2024-04-0119111110.1186/s13014-024-02404-xMulti-institutional evaluation of a Pareto navigation guided automated radiotherapy planning solution for prostate cancerPhilip A Wheeler0Nicholas S West1Richard Powis2Rhydian Maggs3Michael Chu4Rachel A Pearson5Nick Willis6Bartlomiej Kurec7Katie L. Reed8David G. Lewis9John Staffurth10Emiliano Spezi11Anthony E. Millin12Radiotherapy Physics Department, Velindre Cancer CentreNorthern Centre for Cancer Care, Cancer Services and Clinical HaematologyWorcester Oncology Centre, Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS TrustRadiotherapy Physics Department, Velindre Cancer CentreRadiotherapy Physics Department, Velindre Cancer CentreTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University Centre for Cancer, Newcastle UniversityNorthern Centre for Cancer Care, Cancer Services and Clinical HaematologyWorcester Oncology Centre, Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS TrustWorcester Oncology Centre, Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS TrustRadiotherapy Physics Department, Velindre Cancer CentreSchool of Medicine, Cardiff UniversitySchool of Engineering, Cardiff UniversityRadiotherapy Physics Department, Velindre Cancer CentreAbstract Background Current automated planning solutions are calibrated using trial and error or machine learning on historical datasets. Neither method allows for the intuitive exploration of differing trade-off options during calibration, which may aid in ensuring automated solutions align with clinical preference. Pareto navigation provides this functionality and offers a potential calibration alternative. The purpose of this study was to validate an automated radiotherapy planning solution with a novel multi-dimensional Pareto navigation calibration interface across two external institutions for prostate cancer. Methods The implemented ‘Pareto Guided Automated Planning’ (PGAP) methodology was developed in RayStation using scripting and consisted of a Pareto navigation calibration interface built upon a ‘Protocol Based Automatic Iterative Optimisation’ planning framework. 30 previous patients were randomly selected by each institution (IA and IB), 10 for calibration and 20 for validation. Utilising the Pareto navigation interface automated protocols were calibrated to the institutions’ clinical preferences. A single automated plan (VMATAuto) was generated for each validation patient with plan quality compared against the previously treated clinical plan (VMATClinical) both quantitatively, using a range of DVH metrics, and qualitatively through blind review at the external institution. Results PGAP led to marked improvements across the majority of rectal dose metrics, with Dmean reduced by 3.7 Gy and 1.8 Gy for IA and IB respectively (p < 0.001). For bladder, results were mixed with low and intermediate dose metrics reduced for IB but increased for IA. Differences, whilst statistically significant (p < 0.05) were small and not considered clinically relevant. The reduction in rectum dose was not at the expense of PTV coverage (D98% was generally improved with VMATAuto), but was somewhat detrimental to PTV conformality. The prioritisation of rectum over conformality was however aligned with preferences expressed during calibration and was a key driver in both institutions demonstrating a clear preference towards VMATAuto, with 31/40 considered superior to VMATClinical upon blind review. Conclusions PGAP enabled intuitive adaptation of automated protocols to an institution’s planning aims and yielded plans more congruent with the institution’s clinical preference than the locally produced manual clinical plans.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-024-02404-xVMATIMRTAutomationTreatment planningProstate cancerMulti-institutional |
| spellingShingle | Philip A Wheeler Nicholas S West Richard Powis Rhydian Maggs Michael Chu Rachel A Pearson Nick Willis Bartlomiej Kurec Katie L. Reed David G. Lewis John Staffurth Emiliano Spezi Anthony E. Millin Multi-institutional evaluation of a Pareto navigation guided automated radiotherapy planning solution for prostate cancer Radiation Oncology VMAT IMRT Automation Treatment planning Prostate cancer Multi-institutional |
| title | Multi-institutional evaluation of a Pareto navigation guided automated radiotherapy planning solution for prostate cancer |
| title_full | Multi-institutional evaluation of a Pareto navigation guided automated radiotherapy planning solution for prostate cancer |
| title_fullStr | Multi-institutional evaluation of a Pareto navigation guided automated radiotherapy planning solution for prostate cancer |
| title_full_unstemmed | Multi-institutional evaluation of a Pareto navigation guided automated radiotherapy planning solution for prostate cancer |
| title_short | Multi-institutional evaluation of a Pareto navigation guided automated radiotherapy planning solution for prostate cancer |
| title_sort | multi institutional evaluation of a pareto navigation guided automated radiotherapy planning solution for prostate cancer |
| topic | VMAT IMRT Automation Treatment planning Prostate cancer Multi-institutional |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-024-02404-x |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT philipawheeler multiinstitutionalevaluationofaparetonavigationguidedautomatedradiotherapyplanningsolutionforprostatecancer AT nicholasswest multiinstitutionalevaluationofaparetonavigationguidedautomatedradiotherapyplanningsolutionforprostatecancer AT richardpowis multiinstitutionalevaluationofaparetonavigationguidedautomatedradiotherapyplanningsolutionforprostatecancer AT rhydianmaggs multiinstitutionalevaluationofaparetonavigationguidedautomatedradiotherapyplanningsolutionforprostatecancer AT michaelchu multiinstitutionalevaluationofaparetonavigationguidedautomatedradiotherapyplanningsolutionforprostatecancer AT rachelapearson multiinstitutionalevaluationofaparetonavigationguidedautomatedradiotherapyplanningsolutionforprostatecancer AT nickwillis multiinstitutionalevaluationofaparetonavigationguidedautomatedradiotherapyplanningsolutionforprostatecancer AT bartlomiejkurec multiinstitutionalevaluationofaparetonavigationguidedautomatedradiotherapyplanningsolutionforprostatecancer AT katielreed multiinstitutionalevaluationofaparetonavigationguidedautomatedradiotherapyplanningsolutionforprostatecancer AT davidglewis multiinstitutionalevaluationofaparetonavigationguidedautomatedradiotherapyplanningsolutionforprostatecancer AT johnstaffurth multiinstitutionalevaluationofaparetonavigationguidedautomatedradiotherapyplanningsolutionforprostatecancer AT emilianospezi multiinstitutionalevaluationofaparetonavigationguidedautomatedradiotherapyplanningsolutionforprostatecancer AT anthonyemillin multiinstitutionalevaluationofaparetonavigationguidedautomatedradiotherapyplanningsolutionforprostatecancer |