Browsing by Author "Catalano, Suzanne"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item Open Access Clinical Experience With Machine Learning-Based Automated Treatment Planning for Whole Breast Radiation Therapy.(Advances in radiation oncology, 2021-03) Yoo, Sua; Sheng, Yang; Blitzblau, Rachel; McDuff, Susan; Champ, Colin; Morrison, Jay; O'Neill, Leigh; Catalano, Suzanne; Yin, Fang-Fang; Wu, Q JackiePurpose
The machine learning-based automated treatment planning (MLAP) tool has been developed and evaluated for breast radiation therapy planning at our institution. We implemented MLAP for patient treatment and assessed our clinical experience for its performance.Methods and materials
A total of 102 patients of breast or chest wall treatment plans were prospectively evaluated with institutional review board approval. A human planner executed MLAP to create an auto-plan via automation of fluence maps generation. If judged necessary, a planner further fine-tuned the fluence maps to reach a final plan. Planners recorded the time required for auto-planning and manual modification. Target (ie, breast or chest wall and nodes) coverage and dose homogeneity were compared between the auto-plan and final plan.Results
Cases without nodes (n = 71) showed negligible (<1%) differences for target coverage and dose homogeneity between the auto-plan and final plan. Cases with nodes (n = 31) also showed negligible difference for target coverage. However, mean ± standard deviation of volume receiving 105% of the prescribed dose and maximum dose were reduced from 43.0% ± 26.3% to 39.4% ± 23.7% and 119.7% ± 9.5% to 114.4% ± 8.8% from auto-plan to final plan, respectively, all with P ≤ .01 for cases with nodes (n = 31). Mean ± standard deviation time spent for auto-plans and additional fluence modification for final plans were 12.1 ± 9.3 and 13.1 ± 12.9 minutes, respectively, for cases without nodes, and 16.4 ± 9.7 and 26.4 ± 16.4 minutes, respectively, for cases with nodes.Conclusions
The MLAP tool has been successfully implemented for routine clinical practice and has significantly improved planning efficiency. Clinical experience indicates that auto-plans are sufficient for target coverage, but improvement is warranted to reduce high dose volume for cases with nodal irradiation. This study demonstrates the clinical implementation of auto-planning for patient treatment and the significant importance of integrating human experience and feedback to improve MLAP for better clinical translation.Item Open Access Impact of Esophageal Motion on Dosimetry and Toxicity With Thoracic Radiation Therapy.(Technology in cancer research & treatment, 2019-01) Gao, Hao; Kelsey, Chris R; Boyle, John; Xie, Tianyi; Catalano, Suzanne; Wang, Xiaofei; Yin, Fang-FangPURPOSE:To investigate the impact of intra- and inter-fractional esophageal motion on dosimetry and observed toxicity in a phase I dose escalation study of accelerated radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy for locally advanced lung cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS:Patients underwent computed tomography imaging for radiotherapy treatment planning (CT1 and 4DCT1) and at 2 weeks (CT2 and 4DCT2) and 5 weeks (CT3 and 4DCT3) after initiating treatment. Each computed tomography scan consisted of 10-phase 4DCTs in addition to a static free-breathing or breath-hold computed tomography. The esophagus was independently contoured on all computed tomographies and 4DCTs. Both CT2 and CT3 were rigidly registered with CT1 and doses were recalculated using the original intensity-modulated radiation therapy plan based on CT1 to assess the impact of interfractional motion on esophageal dosimetry. Similarly, 4DCT1 data sets were rigidly registered with CT1 to assess the impact of intrafractional motion. The motion was characterized based on the statistical analysis of slice-by-slice center shifts (after registration) for the upper, middle, and lower esophageal regions, respectively. For the dosimetric analysis, the following quantities were calculated and assessed for correlation with toxicity grade: the percent volumes of esophagus that received at least 20 Gy (V20) and 60 Gy (V60), maximum esophageal dose, equivalent uniform dose, and normal tissue complication probability. RESULTS:The interfractional center shifts were 4.4 ± 1.7 mm, 5.5 ± 2.0 mm and 4.9 ± 2.1 mm for the upper, middle, and lower esophageal regions, respectively, while the intrafractional center shifts were 0.6 ± 0.4 mm, 0.7 ± 0.7 mm, and 0.9 ± 0.7 mm, respectively. The mean V60 (and corresponding normal tissue complication probability) values estimated from the interfractional motion analysis were 7.8% (10%), 4.6% (7.5%), 7.5% (8.6%), and 31% (26%) for grade 0, grade 1, grade 2, and grade 3 toxicities, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Interfractional esophageal motion is significantly larger than intrafractional motion. The mean values of V60 and corresponding normal tissue complication probability, incorporating interfractional esophageal motion, correlated positively with esophageal toxicity grade.