Automating proton treatment planning with beam angle selection using Bayesian optimization. Issue 8 (27th May 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Taasti, Vicki T.; Hong, Linda; Shim, Jin Sup(Andy); Deasy, Joseph O.; Zarepisheh, Masoud
• Is Part Of: Medical physics. Volume 47:Issue 8(2020)
• Page Start: 3286
• Page End: 3296
• Publication Date: 2020-05-27
• Subjects: automated treatment planning -- bayesian optimization -- beam angle optimization -- constrained optimization -- proton treatment planning; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Medical physics; Geneeskunde; Natuurkunde; Toepassingen; Biophysics; Periodicals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/mp.14215
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0094-2405

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: To present a fully automated treatment planning process for proton therapy including beam angle selection using a novel Bayesian optimization approach and previously developed constrained hierarchical fluence optimization method. Methods: We adapted our in‐house automated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment planning system, which is based on constrained hierarchical optimization and referred to as ECHO (expedited constrained hierarchical optimization), for proton therapy. To couple this to beam angle selection, we propose using a novel Bayesian approach. By integrating ECHO with this Bayesian beam selection approach, we obtain a fully automated treatment planning framework including beam angle selection. Bayesian optimization is a global optimization technique which only needs to search a small fraction of the search space for slowly varying objective functions (i.e., smooth functions). Expedited constrained hierarchical optimization is run for some initial beam angle candidates and the resultant treatment plan for each beam configuration is rated using a clinically relevant treatment score function. Bayesian optimization iteratively predicts the treatment score for not‐yet‐evaluated candidates to find the best candidate to be optimized next with ECHO. We tested this technique on five head‐and‐neck (HN) patients with two coplanar beams. In addition, tests were performed with two noncoplanar and three coplanar beams for two patients. Results: For the two coplanar configurations, the Bayesian optimization found the optimal beam configuration after running ECHO for, at most, 4% of all potential configurations (23 iterations) for all patients (range: 2%–4%). Compared with the beam configurations chosen by the planner, the optimal configurations reduced the mandible maximum dose by 6.6 Gy and high dose to the unspecified normal tissues by 3.8 Gy, on average. For the two noncoplanar and three coplanar beam configurations, the algorithm converged after 45 iterations (examining <1% of all potential configurations). Conclusions: A fully automated and efficient treatment planning process for proton therapy, including beam angle optimization was developed. The algorithm automatically generates high‐quality plans with optimal beam angle configuration by combining Bayesian optimization and ECHO. As the Bayesian optimization is capable of handling complex nonconvex functions, the treatment score function which is used in the algorithm to evaluate the dose distribution corresponding to each beam configuration can contain any clinically relevant metric.