Automatic quality assurance of radiotherapy treatment plans using Bayesian networks: A multi-institutional study.

Purpose: Artificial intelligence applications in radiation oncology have been the focus of study in the last decade. The introduction of automated and intelligent solutions for routine clinical tasks, such as treatment planning and quality assurance, has the potential to increase safety and efficiency of radiotherapy. In this work, we present a multi-institutional study across three different institutions internationally on a Bayesian network (BN)-based initial plan review assistive tool that alerts radiotherapy professionals for potential erroneous or suboptimal treatment plans. Methods: Clinical data were collected from the oncology information systems in three institutes in Europe (Maastro clinic - 8753 patients treated between 2012 and 2020) and the United States of America (University of Vermont Medical Center [UVMMC] - 2733 patients, University of Washington [UW] - 6180 patients, treated between 2018 and 2021). We trained the BN model to detect potential errors in radiotherapy treatment plans using different combinations of institutional data and performed single-site and cross-site validation with simulated plans with embedded errors. The simulated errors consisted of three different categories: i) patient setup, ii) treatment planning and iii) prescription. We also compared the strategy of using only diagnostic parameters or all variables as evidence for the BN. We evaluated the model performance utilizing the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: The best network performance was observed when the BN model is trained and validated using the dataset in the same center. In particular, the testing and validation using UVMMC data has achieved an AUC of 0.92 with all parameters used as evidence. In cross-validation studies, we observed that the BN model performed better when it was trained and validated in institutes with similar technology and treatment protocols (for instance, when testing on UVMMC data, the model trained on UW data achieved an AUC of 0.84, compared with an AUC of 0.64 for the model trained on Maastro data). Also, combining training data from larger clinics (UW and Maastro clinic) and using it on smaller clinics (UVMMC) leads to satisfactory performance with an AUC of 0.85. Lastly, we found that in general the BN model performed better when all variables are considered as evidence. Conclusion: We have developed and validated a Bayesian network model to assist initial treatment plan review using multi-institutional data with different technology and clinical practices. The model has shown good performance even when trained on data from clinics with divergent profiles, suggesting that the model is able to adapt to different data distributions.