OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the plan quality of our deep learning-based automated treatment planning method for robustly optimized intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans in patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC). The assessment was conducted through a retrospective and prospective study, blindly comparing manual plans with deep learning plans.
METHODS: A set of 95 OPC patients were split into training (n = 60), configuration (n = 10), test retrospective study (n = 10) and test prospective study (n = 15). Our deep learning optimization (DLO) method combines IMPT dose prediction using a deep learning model with a robust mimicking optimization algorithm. Dosimetrists manually adjusted the DLO plan for individual patients. In both studies, manual plans and manually adjusted deep learning (mDLO) plans were blindly assessed by a radiation oncologist, a dosimetrist and a physicist, through visual inspection, clinical goal evaluation, and comparison of normal tissue complication probability values. mDLO plans were completed within an average time of 2.5 h. In comparison, the manual planning process typically took around 2 days.
RESULTS: In the retrospective study, in 10/10 (100%) patients, the mDLO plans were preferred, while in the prospective study, 9 out of 15 (60%) mDLO plans were preferred. In 4 out of the remaining 6 cases, the manual and mDLO plans were considered comparable in quality. Differences between manual and mDLO plans were limited.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed a high preference for mDLO plans over manual IMPT plans, with 92% of cases considering mDLO plans comparable or superior in quality for OPC patients.

UNASSIGNED: Artificial intelligence (AI) is a technique which tries to think like humans and mimic human behaviors. It has been considered as an alternative in a lot of human-dependent steps in radiotherapy (RT), since the human participation is a principal uncertainty source in RT. The aim of this work is to provide a systematic summary of the current literature on AI application for RT, and to clarify its role for RT practice in terms of clinical views.
UNASSIGNED: A systematic literature search of PubMed and Google Scholar was performed to identify original articles involving the AI applications in RT from the inception to 2022. Studies were included if they reported original data and explored the clinical applications of AI in RT.
UNASSIGNED: The selected studies were categorized into three aspects of RT: organ and lesion segmentation, treatment planning and quality assurance. For each aspect, this review discussed how these AI tools could be involved in the RT protocol.
UNASSIGNED: Our study revealed that AI was a potential alternative for the human-dependent steps in the complex process of RT.

OBJECTIVE: One of the advantages of integrating automated processes in treatment planning is the reduction of manual planning variability. This study aims to assess whether a deep-learning-based auto-planning solution can also reduce the contouring variation-related impact on the planned dose for early-breast cancer treatment.
METHODS: Auto- and manual plans were optimized for 20 patients using both auto- and manual OARs, including both lungs, right breast, heart, and left-anterior-descending (LAD) artery. Differences in terms of recalculated dose (ΔDrcM,ΔDrcA) and reoptimized dose (ΔDroM,ΔDroA) for manual (M) and auto (A)-plans, were evaluated on manual structures. The correlation between several geometric similarities and dose differences was also explored (Spearman\'s test).
RESULTS: Auto-contours were found slightly smaller in size than manual contours for right breast and heart and more than twice larger for LAD. Recalculated dose differences were found negligible for both planning approaches except for heart (ΔDrcM=-0.4 Gy, ΔDrcA=-0.3 Gy) and right breast (ΔDrcM=-1.2 Gy, ΔDrcA=-1.3 Gy) maximum dose. Re-optimized dose differences were considered equivalent to recalculated ones for both lungs and LAD, while they were significantly smaller for heart (ΔDroM=-0.2 Gy, ΔDroA=-0.2 Gy) and right breast (ΔDroM =-0.3 Gy, ΔDroA=-0.9 Gy) maximum dose. Twenty-one correlations were found for ΔDrcM,A (M=8,A=13) that reduced to four for ΔDroM,A (M=3,A=1).
CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of auto-planning to contouring variation was found not relevant when compared to manual planning, regardless of the method used to calculate the dose differences. Nonetheless, the method employed to define the dose differences strongly affected the correlation analysis resulting highly reduced when dose was reoptimized, regardless of the planning approach.

Objective. In head-and-neck cancer intensity modulated proton therapy, adaptive radiotherapy is currently restricted to offline re-planning, mitigating the effect of slow changes in patient anatomies. Daily online adaptations can potentially improve dosimetry. Here, a new, fully automated online re-optimization strategy is presented. In a retrospective study, this online re-optimization approach was compared to our trigger-based offline re-planning (offlineTBre-planning) schedule, including extensive robustness analyses.Approach. The online re-optimization method employs automated multi-criterial re-optimization, using robust optimization with 1 mm setup-robustness settings (in contrast to 3 mm for offlineTBre-planning). Hard planning constraints and spot addition are used to enforce adequate target coverage, avoid prohibitively large maximum doses and minimize organ-at-risk doses. For 67 repeat-CTs from 15 patients, fraction doses of the two strategies were compared for the CTVs and organs-at-risk. Per repeat-CT, 10.000 fractions with different setup and range robustness settings were simulated using polynomial chaos expansion for fast and accurate dose calculations.Main results. For 14/67 repeat-CTs, offlineTBre-planning resulted in <50% probability ofD98%≥ 95% of the prescribed dose (Dpres) in one or both CTVs, which never happened with online re-optimization. With offlineTBre-planning, eight repeat-CTs had zero probability of obtainingD98%≥ 95%Dpresfor CTV7000, while the minimum probability with online re-optimization was 81%. Risks of xerostomia and dysphagia grade ≥ II were reduced by 3.5 ± 1.7 and 3.9 ± 2.8 percentage point [mean ± SD] (p< 10-5for both). In online re-optimization, adjustment of spot configuration followed by spot-intensity re-optimization took 3.4 min on average.Significance. The fast online re-optimization strategy always prevented substantial losses of target coverage caused by day-to-day anatomical variations, as opposed to the clinical trigger-based offline re-planning schedule. On top of this, online re-optimization could be performed with smaller setup robustness settings, contributing to improved organs-at-risk sparing.

OBJECTIVE: Without a clear definition of an optimal treatment plan, no optimization model can be perfect. Therefore, instead of automatically finding a single \"optimal\" plan, finding multiple, yet different near-optimal plans, can be an insightful approach to support radiation oncologists in finding the plan they are looking for.
METHODS: BRIGHT is a flexible AI-based optimization method for brachytherapy treatment planning that has already been shown capable of finding high-quality plans that trade-off target volume coverage and healthy tissue sparing. We leverage the flexibility of BRIGHT to find plans with similar dose-volume criteria, yet different dose distributions. We further describe extensions that facilitate fast plan adaptation should planning aims need to be adjusted, and straightforwardly allow incorporating hospital-specific aims besides standard protocols.
RESULTS: Results are obtained for prostate (n = 12) and cervix brachytherapy (n = 36). We demonstrate the possible differences in dose distribution for optimized plans with equal dose-volume criteria. We furthermore demonstrate that adding hospital-specific aims enables adhering to hospital-specific practice while still being able to automatically create cervix plans that more often satisfy the EMBRACE-II protocol than clinical practice. Finally, we illustrate the feasibility of fast plan adaptation.
CONCLUSIONS: Methods such as BRIGHT enable new ways to construct high-quality treatment plans for brachytherapy while offering new insights by making explicit the options one has. In particular, it becomes possible to present to radiation oncologists a manageable set of alternative plans that, from an optimization perspective are equally good, yet differ in terms of coverage-sparing trade-offs and shape of the dose distribution.

Objective.Intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is an emerging treatment modality for cancer. However, treatment planning for IMPT is labour-intensive and time-consuming. We have developed a novel approach for multi-criteria optimisation (MCO) of robust IMPT plans (SISS-MCO) that is fully automated and fast, and we compare it for head and neck, cervix, and prostate tumours to a previously published method for automated robust MCO (IPBR-MCO, van de Water 2013).Approach.In both auto-planning approaches, the applied automated MCO of spot weights was performed with wish-list driven prioritised optimisation (Breedveld 2012). In SISS-MCO, spot weight MCO was applied once for every patient after sparsity-induced spot selection (SISS) for pre-selection of the most relevant spots from a large input set of candidate spots. IPBR-MCO had several iterations of spot re-sampling, each followed by MCO of the weights of the current spots.Main results.Compared to the published IPBR-MCO, the novel SISS-MCO resulted in similar or slightly superior plan quality. Optimisation times were reduced by a factor of 6 i.e. from 287 to 47 min. Numbers of spots and energy layers in the final plans were similar.Significance.The novel SISS-MCO automatically generated high-quality robust IMPT plans. Compared to a published algorithm for automated robust IMPT planning, optimisation times were reduced on average by a factor of 6. Moreover, SISS-MCO is a large scale approach; this enables optimisation of more complex wish-lists, and novel research opportunities in proton therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Ethos proposes a template-based automatic dose planning (Etb) for online adaptive radiotherapy. This study evaluates the general performance of Etb for prostate cancer, as well as the ability to generate patient-optimal plans, by comparing it with another state-of-the-art automatic planning method, i.e., deep learning dose prediction followed by dose mimicking (DP + DM).
METHODS: General performances and capability to produce patient-optimal plan were investigated through two studies: Study-S1 generated plans for 45 patients using our initial Ethos clinical goals template (EG_init), and compared them to manually generated plans (MG). For study-S2, 10 patients which showed poor performances at study-S1 were selected. S2 compared the quality of plans generated with four different methods: 1) Ethos initial template (EG_init_selected), 2) Ethos updated template-based on S1 results (EG_upd_selected), 3) DP + DM, and 4) MG plans.
RESULTS: EG_init plans showed satisfactory performance for dose level above 50 Gy: reported mean metrics differences (EG_init minus MG) never exceeded 0.6 %. However, lower dose levels showed loosely optimized metrics, mean differences for V30Gy to rectum and V20Gy to anal canal were of 6.6 % and 13.0 %. EG_init_selected showed amplified differences in V30Gy to rectum and V20Gy to anal canal: 8.5 % and 16.9 %, respectively. These dropped to 5.7 % and 11.5 % for EG_upd_selected plans but strongly increased V60Gy to rectum for 2 patients. DP + DM plans achieved differences of 3.4 % and 4.6 % without compromising any V60Gy.
CONCLUSIONS: General performances of Etb were satisfactory. However, optimizing with template of goals might be limiting for some complex cases. Over our test patients, DP + DM outperformed the Etb approach.

Objective. Automated treatment planning today is focussed on non-exact, two-step procedures. Firstly, dose-volume histograms (DVHs) or 3D dose distributions are predicted from the patient anatomy. Secondly, these are converted in multi-leaf collimator (MLC) apertures and monitor units (MUs) using a generic optimisation to obtain the final treatment plan. In contrast, we present a method to predict volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) MLC apertures and MUs directly from patient anatomy using deep learning. The predicted plan is then provided as initialisation to the optimiser for fine-tuning.Approach. 148 patients (training: 101; validation: 23; test: 24), treated for right breast cancer, are replanned to obtain a homogeneous database of 3-arc VMAT plans (PTVBreast: 45.57 Gy; PTVBoost: 55.86 Gy) according to the clinical protocol, using RapidPlanTMwith automatic optimisation and extended convergence mode (clinical workflow). Projections of the CT and contours are created along the beam\'s eye view of all control points and given as input to a U-net type convolutional neural networks (CNN). The output are the MLC aperture and MU for all control points, from which a DICOM RTplan is built. This is imported and further optimised in the treatment planning system using automatic optimisation without convergence mode, with clinical PTV objectives and organs-at-risk (OAR) objectives based on the DVHs calculated from the imported plan (CNN workflow).Main results. Mean dose differences between the clinical and CNN workflow over the test set are 0.2 ± 0.5 Gy atD95%and 0.6 ± 0.4 Gy atD0.035ccof PTVBreastand -0.4 ± 0.3 Gy atD95%and 0.7 ± 0.3 Gy atD0.035ccof PTVBoost. For the OAR, they are -0.2 ± 0.2 Gy forDmean,heartand 0.04 ± 0.8 Gy forDmean,ipsilateral lung. The mean computation time is 60 and 25 min respectively.Significance. VMAT optimisation can be initialised by MLC apertures and MUs, directly predicted from patient anatomy using a CNN, reducing planning time with more than half while maintaining clinically acceptable plans. This procedure puts the planner in a supervising role over an AI-based treatment planning workflow.

UNASSIGNED: Knowledge-based planning (KBP) is a method for automated radiotherapy treatment planning where appropriate optimization objectives for new patients are predicted based on a library of training plans. KBP can save time and improve organ at-risk sparing and inter-patient consistency compared to manual planning, but its performance depends on the quality of the training plans. We used another system for automated planning, which generates multi-criteria optimized (MCO) plans based on a wish list, to create training plans for the KBP model, to allow seamless integration of knowledge from a new system into clinical routine. Model performance was compared for KBP models trained with manually created and automatic MCO treatment plans.
UNASSIGNED: Two RapidPlan models with the same 30 locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients included were created, one containing manually created clinical plans (RP_CLIN) and one containing fully automatic multi-criteria optimized plans (RP_MCO). For 15 validation patients, model performance was compared in terms of dose-volume parameters and normal tissue complication probabilities, and an oncologist performed a blind comparison of the clinical (CLIN), RP_CLIN, and RP_MCO plans.
UNASSIGNED: The heart and esophagus doses were lower for RP_MCO compared to RP_CLIN, resulting in an average reduction in the risk of 2-year mortality by 0.9 percentage points and the risk of acute esophageal toxicity by 1.6 percentage points with RP_MCO. The oncologist preferred the RP_MCO plan for 8 patients and the CLIN plan for 7 patients, while the RP_CLIN plan was not preferred for any patients.
UNASSIGNED: RP_MCO improved OAR sparing compared to RP_CLIN and was selected for implementation in the clinic. Training a KBP model with clinical plans may lead to suboptimal output plans, and making an extra effort to optimize the library plans in the KBP model creation phase can improve the plan quality for many future patients.

This study evaluated the feasibility of using artificial intelligence (AI) segmentation software for volume-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) prostate planning in conjunction with knowledge-based planning to facilitate a fully automated workflow. Two commercially available AI software programs, Radformation AutoContour (Radformation, New York, NY) and Siemens AI-Rad Companion (Siemens Healthineers, Malvern, PA) were used to auto-segment the rectum, bladder, femoral heads, and bowel bag on 30 retrospective clinical cases (10 intact prostate, 10 prostate bed, and 10 prostate and lymph node). Physician-segmented target volumes were transferred to AI structure sets. In-house RapidPlan models were used to generate plans using the original, physician-segmented structure sets as well as Radformation and Siemens AI-generated structure sets. Thus, there were three plans for each of the 30 cases, totaling 90 plans. Following RapidPlan optimization, planning target volume (PTV) coverage was set to 95%. Then, the plans optimized using AI structures were recalculated on the physician structure set with fixed monitor units. In this way, physician contours were used as the gold standard for identifying any clinically relevant differences in dose distributions. One-way analysis of variation (ANOVA) was used for statistical analysis. No statistically significant differences were observed across the three sets of plans for intact prostate, prostate bed, or prostate and lymph nodes. The results indicate that an automated volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) prostate planning workflow can consistently achieve high plan quality. However, our results also show that small but consistent differences in contouring preferences may lead to subtle differences in planning results. Therefore, the clinical implementation of auto-contouring should be carefully validated.