Knowledge‐based inverse treatment planning for low‐dose‐rate prostate brachytherapy. Issue 5 (20th March 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Guthier, Christian V.; Orio, Peter F.; Buzurovic, Ivan; Cormack, Robert A.
• Is Part Of: Medical physics. Volume 48:Issue 5(2021)
• Page Start: 2108
• Page End: 2117
• Publication Date: 2021-03-20
• Subjects: brachytherapy -- inverse treatment planning -- knowledge based planning; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Medical physics; Geneeskunde; Natuurkunde; Toepassingen; Biophysics; Periodicals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/mp.14775
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0094-2405

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: Permanent low‐dose‐rate brachytherapy is a widely used treatment modality for managing prostate cancer. In such interventions, treatment planning can be a challenging task and requires experience and skills of the planner. We developed a novel knowledge‐based (KB) optimization method based on previous treatment plans. The purpose of this method was to generate clinically acceptable plans that do not require extensive manual adjustments in clinical scenarios. Methods: Objective functions used in current inverse planning methods are preferably based on spatial invariant dose objectives rather than spatial dose distributions. Therefore, they are prone to return suboptimal plans resulting in time consuming plan adjustments. To overcome this limitation, a KB approach is introduced. The KB model uses the dose distributions of previous clinical plans projected onto a standardized geometry. From those standardized distributions a template plan is generated. The treatment plans were optimized with an in‐house developed planning system by solving a constraint inverse optimization problem that mimics the projected template dose plan constraint to DVH metrics. The method is benchmarked under an IRB‐approved retrospective study by comparing optimization time, dosimetric performance, and clinical acceptability against current clinical practice. The quality of the KB model is evaluated with a Turing test. Results: The KB model consists of five high‐quality treatment plans. Those plans were selected by one of our experts and showed all desired dosimetric features. After generating the model treatment plans were created with one run of the optimizer for the remaining 20 patients. The optimization time including needle optimization ranged from 6 to 29 s. Based on a Wilcoxon signed rank test the new plans are dosimetrically equivalent to current clinical practice. The Turing test showed that the proposed method generates plans that are equivalent to current clinical practice and that the dose prediction drives the optimization to achieve high‐quality treatment plans. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that the proposed KB model was able to capture user‐specific features in isodose lines which can be used to generate acceptable treatment plans with a single run of the optimization engine in under a minute. This could potentially reduce the time in the operating room and the time a patient is under anesthesia.