1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Using multi-centre data to train and validate a knowledge-based model for planning radiotherapy of the head and neck

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background and purpose

          Knowledge-based radiotherapy planning models have been shown to reduce healthy tissue dose and optimisation times, with larger training databases delivering greater robustness. We propose a method of combining knowledge-based models from multiple centres to create a ‘super-model’ using their collective patient libraries, thereby increasing the breadth of training knowledge.

          Materials and methods

          A head and neck super-model containing 207 patient datasets was created by merging the data libraries of three centres. Validation was performed on 30 independent datasets during which optimiser parameters were tuned to deliver the optimal set of model template objectives. The super-model was tested on a further 40 unseen patients from four radiotherapy centres, including one centre external to the training process. The generated plans were assessed using established plan evaluation criteria.

          Results

          The super-model generated plans that surpassed the dose objectives for all patients with single optimisations in an average time of 10 min. Healthy tissue sparing was significantly improved over manual planning, with dose reductions to parotid of 4.7 ± 2.1 Gy, spinal cord of 3.3 ± 0.9 Gy and brainstem of 2.9 ± 1.7 Gy. Target coverage met the established constraints but was marginally reduced compared with clinical plans.

          Conclusions

          Three centres successfully merged patient libraries to create a super-model capable of generating plans that met plan evaluation criteria for head and neck patients with improvements in healthy tissue sparing. The findings indicate that the super-model could improve head and neck planning quality, efficiency and consistency across radiotherapy centres.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Critical impact of radiotherapy protocol compliance and quality in the treatment of advanced head and neck cancer: results from TROG 02.02.

          To report the impact of radiotherapy quality on outcome in a large international phase III trial evaluating radiotherapy with concurrent cisplatin plus tirapazamine for advanced head and neck cancer. The protocol required interventional review of radiotherapy plans by the Quality Assurance Review Center (QARC). All plans and radiotherapy documentation underwent post-treatment review by the Trial Management Committee (TMC) for protocol compliance. Secondary review of noncompliant plans for predicted impact on tumor control was performed. Factors associated with poor protocol compliance were studied, and outcome data were analyzed in relation to protocol compliance and radiotherapy quality. At TMC review, 25.4% of the patients had noncompliant plans but none in which QARC-recommended changes had been made. At secondary review, 47% of noncompliant plans (12% overall) had deficiencies with a predicted major adverse impact on tumor control. Major deficiencies were unrelated to tumor subsite or to T or N stage (if N+), but were highly correlated with number of patients enrolled at the treatment center ( or = 20 patients, 5.4%; P < .001). In patients who received at least 60 Gy, those with major deficiencies in their treatment plans (n = 87) had a markedly inferior outcome compared with those whose treatment was initially protocol compliant (n = 502): -2 years overall survival, 50% v 70%; hazard ratio (HR), 1.99; P < .001; and 2 years freedom from locoregional failure, 54% v 78%; HR, 2.37; P < .001, respectively. These results demonstrate the critical importance of radiotherapy quality on outcome of chemoradiotherapy in head and neck cancer. Centers treating only a few patients are the major source of quality problems.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Variation in external beam treatment plan quality: An inter-institutional study of planners and planning systems.

            This study quantifies variation in radiation treatment plan quality for plans generated by a population of treatment planners given very specific plan objectives. A "Plan Quality Metric" (PQM) with 14 submetrics, each with a unique value function, was defined for a prostate treatment plan, serving as specific goals of a hypothetical "virtual physician." The exact PQM logic was distributed to a population of treatment planners (to remove ambiguity of plan goals or plan assessment methodology) as was a predefined computed tomographic image set and anatomic structure set (to remove anatomy delineation as a variable). Treatment planners used their clinical treatment planning system (TPS) to generate their best plan based on the specified goals and submitted their results for analysis. One hundred forty datasets were received and 125 plans accepted and analyzed. There was wide variability in treatment plan quality (defined as the ability of the planners and plans to meet the specified goals) quantified by the PQM. Despite the variability, the resulting PQM distributions showed no statistically significant difference between TPS employed, modality (intensity modulated radiation therapy versus arc), or education and certification status of the planner. The PQM results showed negligible correlation to number of beam angles, total monitor units, years of experience of the planner, or planner confidence. The ability of the treatment planners to meet the specified plan objectives (as quantified by the PQM) exhibited no statistical dependence on technologic parameters (TPS, modality, plan complexity), nor was the plan quality statistically different based on planner demographics (years of experience, confidence, certification, and education). Therefore, the wide variation in plan quality could be attributed to a general "planner skill" category that would lend itself to processes of continual improvement where best practices could be derived and disseminated to improve the mean quality and minimize the variation in any population of treatment planners. Copyright © 2012 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Evaluation of a knowledge-based planning solution for head and neck cancer.

              Automated and knowledge-based planning techniques aim to reduce variations in plan quality. RapidPlan uses a library consisting of different patient plans to make a model that can predict achievable dose-volume histograms (DVHs) for new patients and uses those models for setting optimization objectives. We benchmarked RapidPlan versus clinical plans for 2 patient groups, using 3 different libraries.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol
                Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol
                Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology
                Elsevier
                2405-6316
                25 January 2022
                January 2022
                25 January 2022
                : 21
                : 18-23
                Affiliations
                [a ]University College London Hospial, UK
                [b ]Northampton General Hospital, UK
                [c ]Guy’s And St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, UK
                [d ]Royal Surrey County Hospital, UK
                [e ]Varian Medical Systems, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. miranda.frizzelle@ 123456nhs.net
                Article
                S2405-6316(22)00003-3
                10.1016/j.phro.2022.01.003
                8981763
                a537d6f9-031d-4f64-b65e-981bb41018c4
                © 2022 The Author(s)

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 29 September 2021
                : 12 January 2022
                : 12 January 2022
                Categories
                Original Research Article

                radiotherapy,rapidplan,head and neck,knowledge-based planning,super-model

                Comments

                Comment on this article