Clinical implementation of automated treatment planning for whole‐brain radiotherapy. Issue 9 (10th July 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Han, Eun Young; Cardenas, Carlos E.; Nguyen, Callistus; Hancock, Donald; Xiao, Yao; Mumme, Raymond; Court, Laurence E.; Rhee, Dong Joo; Netherton, Tucker J.; Li, Jing; Yeboa, Debra Nana; Wang, Chenyang; Briere, Tina M.; Balter, Peter; Martel, Mary K.; Wen, Zhifei
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 22:Issue 9(2021)
• Page Start: 94
• Page End: 102
• Publication Date: 2021-07-10
• Subjects: automation -- deep learning -- whole brain; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13350
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: The purpose of the study was to develop and clinically deploy an automated, deep learning‐based approach to treatment planning for whole‐brain radiotherapy (WBRT). We collected CT images and radiotherapy treatment plans to automate a beam aperture definition from 520 patients who received WBRT. These patients were split into training ( n = 312), cross‐validation ( n = 104), and test ( n = 104) sets which were used to train and evaluate a deep learning model. The DeepLabV3+ architecture was trained to automatically define the beam apertures on lateral‐opposed fields using digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs). For the beam aperture evaluation, 1st quantitative analysis was completed using a test set before clinical deployment and 2nd quantitative analysis was conducted 90 days after clinical deployment. The mean surface distance and the Hausdorff distances were compared in the anterior‐inferior edge between the clinically used and the predicted fields. Clinically used plans and deep‐learning generated plans were evaluated by various dose–volume histogram metrics of brain, cribriform plate, and lens. The 1st quantitative analysis showed that the average mean surface distance and Hausdorff distance were 7.1 mm (±3.8 mm) and 11.2 mm (±5.2 mm), respectively, in the anterior–inferior edge of the field. The retrospective dosimetric comparison showed that brain dose coverage (D99%, D95%, D1%) of the automatically generated plans was 29.7, 30.3, and 32.5 Gy, respectively, and the average dose of both lenses was up to 19.0% lower when compared to the clinically used plans. Following the clinical deployment, the 2nd quantitative analysis showed that the average mean surface distance and Hausdorff distance between the predicted and clinically used fields were 2.6 mm (±3.2 mm) and 4.5 mm (±5.6 mm), respectively. In conclusion, the automated patient‐specific treatment planning solution for WBRT was implemented in our clinic. The predicted fields appeared consistent with clinically used fields and the predicted plans were dosimetrically comparable.