Automatic end‐to‐end VMAT treatment planning for rectal cancers
Kai Huang,Christine Chung,Ethan B. Ludmir,Lifei Zhang,Constance A. Owens,Jean Gumma‐De La Vega,Jack Duryea,Yao Zhao,Xinru Chen,David Fuentes,Carlos E. Cardenas,Tina Marie Briere,Sam Beddar,Laurence E. Court,Prajnan Das
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14259
2024-02-07
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
Abstract:Background The treatment planning process from segmentation to producing a deliverable plan is time‐consuming and labor‐intensive. Existing solutions automate the segmentation and planning processes individually. The feasibility of combining auto‐segmentation and auto‐planning for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for rectal cancers in an end‐to‐end process is not clear. Purpose To create and clinically evaluate a complete end‐to‐end process for auto‐segmentation and auto‐planning of VMAT for rectal cancer requiring only the gross tumor volume contour and a CT scan as inputs. Methods Patient scans and data were retrospectively selected from our institutional records for patients treated for malignant neoplasm of the rectum. We trained, validated, and tested deep learning auto‐segmentation models using nnU‐Net architecture for clinical target volume (CTV), bowel bag, large bowel, small bowel, total bowel, femurs, bladder, bone marrow, and female and male genitalia. For the CTV, we identified 174 patients with clinically drawn CTVs. We used data for 18 patients for all structures other than the CTV. The structures were contoured under the guidance of and reviewed by a gastrointestinal (GI) radiation oncologist. The predicted results for CTV in 35 patients and organs at risk (OAR) in six patients were scored by the GI radiation oncologist using a five‐point Likert scale. For auto‐planning, a RapidPlan knowledge‐based planning solution was modeled for VMAT delivery with a prescription of 25 Gy in five fractions. The model was trained and tested on 20 and 34 patients, respectively. The resulting plans were scored by two GI radiation oncologists using a five‐point Likert scale. Finally, the end‐to‐end pipeline was evaluated on 16 patients, and the resulting plans were scored by two GI radiation oncologists. Results In 31 of 35 patients, CTV contours were clinically acceptable without necessary modifications. The CTV achieved a Dice similarity coefficient of 0.85 (±0.05) and 95% Hausdorff distance of 15.25 (±5.59) mm. All OAR contours were clinically acceptable without edits, except for large and small bowel which were challenging to differentiate. However, contours for total, large, and small bowel were clinically acceptable. The two physicians accepted 100% and 91% of the auto‐plans. For the end‐to‐end pipeline, the two physicians accepted 88% and 62% of the auto‐plans. Conclusions This study demonstrated that the VMAT treatment planning technique for rectal cancer can be automated to generate clinically acceptable and safe plans with minimal human interventions.
radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging