Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37334746›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023

Automated treatment planning for proton pencil beam scanning using deep learning dose prediction and dose-mimicking optimization.

Dominic Maes, Mats Holmstrom, Rasmus Helander, Jatinder Saini, Christine Fang, Stephen R Bowen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Dominic MaesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2630-2571
Mats HolmstromRaysearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden.
Rasmus HelanderRaysearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden.
Jatinder SainiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Christine FangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Stephen R BowenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7581-770X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study is to investigate the use of a deep learning architecture for automated treatment planning for proton pencil beam scanning (PBS).

methodsA 3-dimensional (3D) U-Net model has been implemented in a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) that uses contoured regions of interest (ROI) binary masks as model inputs with a predicted dose distribution as the model output. Predicted dose distributions were converted to deliverable PBS treatment plans using a voxel-wise robust dose mimicking optimization algorithm. This model was leveraged to generate machine learning (ML) optimized plans for patients receiving proton PBS irradiation of the chest wall. Model training was carried out on a retrospective set of 48 previously-treated chest wall patient treatment plans. Model evaluation was carried out by generating ML-optimized plans on a hold-out set of 12 contoured chest wall patient CT datasets from previously treated patients. Clinical goal criteria and gamma analysis were used to compare dose distributions of the ML-optimized plans against the clinically approved plans across the test patients.

resultsStatistical analysis of mean clinical goal criteria indicates that compared to the clinical plans, the ML optimization workflow generated robust plans with similar dose to the heart, lungs, and esophagus while achieving superior dosimetric coverage to the PTV chest wall (clinical mean V95 = 97.6% vs. ML mean V95 = 99.1%, p < 0.001) across the 12 test patients.

conclusionsML-based automated treatment plan optimization using the 3D U-Net model can generate treatment plans of similar clinical quality compared to human-driven optimization.

Indexed as

Deep LearningProton TherapyRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedHumansOrgans at RiskProtonsRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedRetrospective StudiesProtonsdeep learningproton therapy

Identifiers

PMID37334746
PMCPMC10562035

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.