Cargando…

Evaluating machine learning enhanced intelligent‐optimization‐engine (IOE) performance for ethos head‐and‐neck (HN) plan generation

PURPOSE: Varian Ethos utilizes novel intelligent‐optimization‐engine (IOE) designed to automate the planning. However, this introduced a black box approach to plan optimization and challenge for planners to improve plan quality. This study aims to evaluate machine‐learning‐guided initial reference p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Visak, Justin, Inam, Enobong, Meng, Boyu, Wang, Siqiu, Parsons, David, Nyugen, Dan, Zhang, Tingliang, Moon, Dominic, Avkshtol, Vladimir, Jiang, Steve, Sher, David, Lin, Mu‐Han
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10338805/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36877668
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13950
_version_ 1785071706534051840
author Visak, Justin
Inam, Enobong
Meng, Boyu
Wang, Siqiu
Parsons, David
Nyugen, Dan
Zhang, Tingliang
Moon, Dominic
Avkshtol, Vladimir
Jiang, Steve
Sher, David
Lin, Mu‐Han
author_facet Visak, Justin
Inam, Enobong
Meng, Boyu
Wang, Siqiu
Parsons, David
Nyugen, Dan
Zhang, Tingliang
Moon, Dominic
Avkshtol, Vladimir
Jiang, Steve
Sher, David
Lin, Mu‐Han
author_sort Visak, Justin
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Varian Ethos utilizes novel intelligent‐optimization‐engine (IOE) designed to automate the planning. However, this introduced a black box approach to plan optimization and challenge for planners to improve plan quality. This study aims to evaluate machine‐learning‐guided initial reference plan generation approaches for head & neck (H&N) adaptive radiotherapy (ART). METHODS: Twenty previously treated patients treated on C‐arm/Ring‐mounted were retroactively re‐planned in the Ethos planning system using a fixed 18‐beam intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) template. Clinical goals for IOE input were generated using (1) in‐house deep‐learning 3D‐dose predictor (AI‐Guided) (2) commercial knowledge‐based planning (KBP) model with universal RTOG‐based population criteria (KBP‐RTOG) and (3) an RTOG‐based constraint template only (RTOG) for in‐depth analysis of IOE sensitivity. Similar training data was utilized for both models. Plans were optimized until their respective criteria were achieved or DVH‐estimation band was satisfied. Plans were normalized such that the highest PTV dose level received 95% coverage. Target coverage, high‐impact organs‐at‐risk (OAR) and plan deliverability was assessed in comparison to clinical (benchmark) plans. Statistical significance was evaluated using a paired two‐tailed student t‐test. RESULTS: AI‐guided plans were superior to both KBP‐RTOG and RTOG‐only plans with respect to clinical benchmark cases. Overall, OAR doses were comparable or improved with AI‐guided plans versus benchmark, while they increased with KBP‐RTOG and RTOG plans. However, all plans generally satisfied the RTOG criteria. Heterogeneity Index (HI) was on average <1.07 for all plans. Average modulation factor was 12.2 ± 1.9 (p = n.s), 13.1 ± 1.4 (p = <0.001), 11.5 ± 1.3 (p = n.s.) and 12.2 ± 1.9 for KBP‐RTOG, AI‐Guided, RTOG and benchmark plans, respectively. CONCLUSION: AI‐guided plans were the highest quality. Both KBP‐enabled and RTOG‐only plans are feasible approaches as clinics adopt ART workflows. Similar to constrained optimization, the IOE is sensitive to clinical input goals and we recommend comparable input to an institution's planning directive dosimetric criteria.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10338805
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103388052023-07-14 Evaluating machine learning enhanced intelligent‐optimization‐engine (IOE) performance for ethos head‐and‐neck (HN) plan generation Visak, Justin Inam, Enobong Meng, Boyu Wang, Siqiu Parsons, David Nyugen, Dan Zhang, Tingliang Moon, Dominic Avkshtol, Vladimir Jiang, Steve Sher, David Lin, Mu‐Han J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics PURPOSE: Varian Ethos utilizes novel intelligent‐optimization‐engine (IOE) designed to automate the planning. However, this introduced a black box approach to plan optimization and challenge for planners to improve plan quality. This study aims to evaluate machine‐learning‐guided initial reference plan generation approaches for head & neck (H&N) adaptive radiotherapy (ART). METHODS: Twenty previously treated patients treated on C‐arm/Ring‐mounted were retroactively re‐planned in the Ethos planning system using a fixed 18‐beam intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) template. Clinical goals for IOE input were generated using (1) in‐house deep‐learning 3D‐dose predictor (AI‐Guided) (2) commercial knowledge‐based planning (KBP) model with universal RTOG‐based population criteria (KBP‐RTOG) and (3) an RTOG‐based constraint template only (RTOG) for in‐depth analysis of IOE sensitivity. Similar training data was utilized for both models. Plans were optimized until their respective criteria were achieved or DVH‐estimation band was satisfied. Plans were normalized such that the highest PTV dose level received 95% coverage. Target coverage, high‐impact organs‐at‐risk (OAR) and plan deliverability was assessed in comparison to clinical (benchmark) plans. Statistical significance was evaluated using a paired two‐tailed student t‐test. RESULTS: AI‐guided plans were superior to both KBP‐RTOG and RTOG‐only plans with respect to clinical benchmark cases. Overall, OAR doses were comparable or improved with AI‐guided plans versus benchmark, while they increased with KBP‐RTOG and RTOG plans. However, all plans generally satisfied the RTOG criteria. Heterogeneity Index (HI) was on average <1.07 for all plans. Average modulation factor was 12.2 ± 1.9 (p = n.s), 13.1 ± 1.4 (p = <0.001), 11.5 ± 1.3 (p = n.s.) and 12.2 ± 1.9 for KBP‐RTOG, AI‐Guided, RTOG and benchmark plans, respectively. CONCLUSION: AI‐guided plans were the highest quality. Both KBP‐enabled and RTOG‐only plans are feasible approaches as clinics adopt ART workflows. Similar to constrained optimization, the IOE is sensitive to clinical input goals and we recommend comparable input to an institution's planning directive dosimetric criteria. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-03-06 /pmc/articles/PMC10338805/ /pubmed/36877668 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13950 Text en © 2023 University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Visak, Justin
Inam, Enobong
Meng, Boyu
Wang, Siqiu
Parsons, David
Nyugen, Dan
Zhang, Tingliang
Moon, Dominic
Avkshtol, Vladimir
Jiang, Steve
Sher, David
Lin, Mu‐Han
Evaluating machine learning enhanced intelligent‐optimization‐engine (IOE) performance for ethos head‐and‐neck (HN) plan generation
title Evaluating machine learning enhanced intelligent‐optimization‐engine (IOE) performance for ethos head‐and‐neck (HN) plan generation
title_full Evaluating machine learning enhanced intelligent‐optimization‐engine (IOE) performance for ethos head‐and‐neck (HN) plan generation
title_fullStr Evaluating machine learning enhanced intelligent‐optimization‐engine (IOE) performance for ethos head‐and‐neck (HN) plan generation
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating machine learning enhanced intelligent‐optimization‐engine (IOE) performance for ethos head‐and‐neck (HN) plan generation
title_short Evaluating machine learning enhanced intelligent‐optimization‐engine (IOE) performance for ethos head‐and‐neck (HN) plan generation
title_sort evaluating machine learning enhanced intelligent‐optimization‐engine (ioe) performance for ethos head‐and‐neck (hn) plan generation
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10338805/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36877668
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13950
work_keys_str_mv AT visakjustin evaluatingmachinelearningenhancedintelligentoptimizationengineioeperformanceforethosheadandneckhnplangeneration
AT inamenobong evaluatingmachinelearningenhancedintelligentoptimizationengineioeperformanceforethosheadandneckhnplangeneration
AT mengboyu evaluatingmachinelearningenhancedintelligentoptimizationengineioeperformanceforethosheadandneckhnplangeneration
AT wangsiqiu evaluatingmachinelearningenhancedintelligentoptimizationengineioeperformanceforethosheadandneckhnplangeneration
AT parsonsdavid evaluatingmachinelearningenhancedintelligentoptimizationengineioeperformanceforethosheadandneckhnplangeneration
AT nyugendan evaluatingmachinelearningenhancedintelligentoptimizationengineioeperformanceforethosheadandneckhnplangeneration
AT zhangtingliang evaluatingmachinelearningenhancedintelligentoptimizationengineioeperformanceforethosheadandneckhnplangeneration
AT moondominic evaluatingmachinelearningenhancedintelligentoptimizationengineioeperformanceforethosheadandneckhnplangeneration
AT avkshtolvladimir evaluatingmachinelearningenhancedintelligentoptimizationengineioeperformanceforethosheadandneckhnplangeneration
AT jiangsteve evaluatingmachinelearningenhancedintelligentoptimizationengineioeperformanceforethosheadandneckhnplangeneration
AT sherdavid evaluatingmachinelearningenhancedintelligentoptimizationengineioeperformanceforethosheadandneckhnplangeneration
AT linmuhan evaluatingmachinelearningenhancedintelligentoptimizationengineioeperformanceforethosheadandneckhnplangeneration