Automatic end-to-end VMAT treatment planning for rectal cancers.

VMAT automatic contouring automatic treatment planning rectal cancer rectal radiotherapy segmentation

Journal

Journal of applied clinical medical physics
ISSN: 1526-9914
Titre abrégé: J Appl Clin Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101089176

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
05 Feb 2024
Historique:
revised: 01 09 2023
received: 01 09 2023
accepted: 16 11 2023
medline: 6 2 2024
pubmed: 6 2 2024
entrez: 6 2 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

The treatment planning process from segmentation to producing a deliverable plan is time-consuming and labor-intensive. Existing solutions automate the segmentation and planning processes individually. The feasibility of combining auto-segmentation and auto-planning for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for rectal cancers in an end-to-end process is not clear. To create and clinically evaluate a complete end-to-end process for auto-segmentation and auto-planning of VMAT for rectal cancer requiring only the gross tumor volume contour and a CT scan as inputs. Patient scans and data were retrospectively selected from our institutional records for patients treated for malignant neoplasm of the rectum. We trained, validated, and tested deep learning auto-segmentation models using nnU-Net architecture for clinical target volume (CTV), bowel bag, large bowel, small bowel, total bowel, femurs, bladder, bone marrow, and female and male genitalia. For the CTV, we identified 174 patients with clinically drawn CTVs. We used data for 18 patients for all structures other than the CTV. The structures were contoured under the guidance of and reviewed by a gastrointestinal (GI) radiation oncologist. The predicted results for CTV in 35 patients and organs at risk (OAR) in six patients were scored by the GI radiation oncologist using a five-point Likert scale. For auto-planning, a RapidPlan knowledge-based planning solution was modeled for VMAT delivery with a prescription of 25 Gy in five fractions. The model was trained and tested on 20 and 34 patients, respectively. The resulting plans were scored by two GI radiation oncologists using a five-point Likert scale. Finally, the end-to-end pipeline was evaluated on 16 patients, and the resulting plans were scored by two GI radiation oncologists. In 31 of 35 patients, CTV contours were clinically acceptable without necessary modifications. The CTV achieved a Dice similarity coefficient of 0.85 (±0.05) and 95% Hausdorff distance of 15.25 (±5.59) mm. All OAR contours were clinically acceptable without edits, except for large and small bowel which were challenging to differentiate. However, contours for total, large, and small bowel were clinically acceptable. The two physicians accepted 100% and 91% of the auto-plans. For the end-to-end pipeline, the two physicians accepted 88% and 62% of the auto-plans. This study demonstrated that the VMAT treatment planning technique for rectal cancer can be automated to generate clinically acceptable and safe plans with minimal human interventions.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The treatment planning process from segmentation to producing a deliverable plan is time-consuming and labor-intensive. Existing solutions automate the segmentation and planning processes individually. The feasibility of combining auto-segmentation and auto-planning for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for rectal cancers in an end-to-end process is not clear.
PURPOSE OBJECTIVE
To create and clinically evaluate a complete end-to-end process for auto-segmentation and auto-planning of VMAT for rectal cancer requiring only the gross tumor volume contour and a CT scan as inputs.
METHODS METHODS
Patient scans and data were retrospectively selected from our institutional records for patients treated for malignant neoplasm of the rectum. We trained, validated, and tested deep learning auto-segmentation models using nnU-Net architecture for clinical target volume (CTV), bowel bag, large bowel, small bowel, total bowel, femurs, bladder, bone marrow, and female and male genitalia. For the CTV, we identified 174 patients with clinically drawn CTVs. We used data for 18 patients for all structures other than the CTV. The structures were contoured under the guidance of and reviewed by a gastrointestinal (GI) radiation oncologist. The predicted results for CTV in 35 patients and organs at risk (OAR) in six patients were scored by the GI radiation oncologist using a five-point Likert scale. For auto-planning, a RapidPlan knowledge-based planning solution was modeled for VMAT delivery with a prescription of 25 Gy in five fractions. The model was trained and tested on 20 and 34 patients, respectively. The resulting plans were scored by two GI radiation oncologists using a five-point Likert scale. Finally, the end-to-end pipeline was evaluated on 16 patients, and the resulting plans were scored by two GI radiation oncologists.
RESULTS RESULTS
In 31 of 35 patients, CTV contours were clinically acceptable without necessary modifications. The CTV achieved a Dice similarity coefficient of 0.85 (±0.05) and 95% Hausdorff distance of 15.25 (±5.59) mm. All OAR contours were clinically acceptable without edits, except for large and small bowel which were challenging to differentiate. However, contours for total, large, and small bowel were clinically acceptable. The two physicians accepted 100% and 91% of the auto-plans. For the end-to-end pipeline, the two physicians accepted 88% and 62% of the auto-plans.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrated that the VMAT treatment planning technique for rectal cancer can be automated to generate clinically acceptable and safe plans with minimal human interventions.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38317597
doi: 10.1002/acm2.14259
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e14259

Subventions

Organisme : MD Anderson Cancer Center Institutional Research Grant

Informations de copyright

© 2024 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Références

Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209-249. doi:10.3322/caac.21660
Wo JY, Anker CJ, Ashman JB, et al. Radiation therapy for rectal cancer: executive summary of an ASTRO clinical practice guideline. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2020;11(1):13-25. doi:10.1016/j.prro.2020.08.004
Liscu HD, Miron AI, Rusea AR, et al. Short-course radiotherapy versus long-course radio-chemotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer: meta-analysis from a toxicity perspective. Maedica (Bucur). 2021;16(3):382-388. doi:10.26574/maedica.2021.16.3.382
Van Dyk J, Zubizarreta E, Lievens Y. Cost evaluation to optimise radiation therapy implementation in different income settings: a time-driven activity-based analysis. Radiother Oncol. 2017;125(2):178-185. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2017.08.021
Cardenas CE, Yang J, BM Anderson, Court LE, Brock KB. Advances in auto-segmentation. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2019;29(3):185-197. doi:10.1016/j.semradonc.2019.02.001
Isensee F, Jaeger PF, Kohl SAA, Petersen J, Maier-Hein KH. nnU-Net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation. Nat Methods. 2021;18(2):203-211. doi:10.1038/s41592-020-01008-z
Men K, Dai J, Li Y. Automatic segmentation of the clinical target volume and organs at risk in the planning CT for rectal cancer using deep dilated convolutional neural networks. Med Phys. 2017;44(12):6377-6389. doi:10.1002/mp.12602
Appenzoller LM, Michalski JM, Thorstad WL, Mutic S, Moore KL. Predicting dose-volume histograms for organs-at-risk in IMRT planning. Med Phys. 2012;39(12):7446-7461. doi:10.1118/1.4761864
Kaderka R, Mundt RC, Li N, et al. Automated closed- and open-loop validation of knowledge-based planning routines across multiple disease sites. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2019;9(4):257-265. doi:10.1016/j.prro.2019.02.010
Olanrewaju A, Court LE, Zhang L, et al. Clinical acceptability of automated radiation treatment planning for head and neck cancer using the radiation planning assistant. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2021;11(3):177-184. doi:10.1016/j.prro.2020.12.003
Rhee DJ, Jhingran A, Huang K, et al. Clinical acceptability of fully automated external beam radiotherapy for cervical cancer with three different beam delivery techniques. Med Phys. 2022;49(9):5742-5751. doi:10.1002/mp.15868
Isensee F, Jaeger PF, Kohl SAA, Petersen J, Maier-Hein KH. nnU-Net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation. Nat Methods. 2020;7:203-211. doi:10.1038/s41592-020-01008-z. Published online December.
Yu C, Anakwenze CP, Zhao Y, et al. Multi-organ segmentation of abdominal structures from non-contrast and contrast enhanced CT images. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):19093. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-21206-3
Park J, Venkatesulu BP, Kujundzic K, et al. Consensus quality measures and dose constraints for rectal cancer from the veterans affairs radiation oncology quality surveillance program and American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) expert panel. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2022;12(5):424-436. doi:10.1016/j.prro.2022.05.005
Xia X, Wang J, Li Y, et al. An artificial intelligence-based full-process solution for radiotherapy: a proof of concept study on rectal cancer. Front Oncol. 2021;10:1-8.
Baroudi H, Brock KK, Cao W, et al. Automated contouring and planning in radiation therapy: what is ‘Clinically Acceptable’. Diagnostics. 2023;13(4):667. doi:10.3390/diagnostics13040667

Auteurs

Kai Huang (K)

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas, USA.
Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.

Christine Chung (C)

Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.

Ethan B Ludmir (EB)

Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.

Lifei Zhang (L)

Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.

Constance A Owens (CA)

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas, USA.
Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.

Jean Gumma-De La Vega (JG)

Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.

Jack Duryea (J)

Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.

Yao Zhao (Y)

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas, USA.
Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.

Xinru Chen (X)

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas, USA.
Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.

David Fuentes (D)

Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.

Carlos E Cardenas (CE)

Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.

Tina Marie Briere (TM)

Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.

Sam Beddar (S)

Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.

Laurence E Court (LE)

Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.

Prajnan Das (P)

Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.

Classifications MeSH