SU-G-201-09: Evaluation of a Novel Machine-Learning Algorithm for Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy Treatment Planning
Purpose: A novel, automated, algorithm for permanent prostate brachytherapy (PPB) treatment planning has been developed. The novel approach uses machine-learning (ML), a form of artificial intelligence, to substantially decrease planning time while simultaneously retaining the clinical intuition of...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Medical physics (Lancaster) 2016-06, Vol.43 (6), p.3624-3625 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Purpose:
A novel, automated, algorithm for permanent prostate brachytherapy (PPB) treatment planning has been developed. The novel approach uses machine-learning (ML), a form of artificial intelligence, to substantially decrease planning time while simultaneously retaining the clinical intuition of plans created by radiation oncologists. This study seeks to compare the ML algorithm against expert-planned PPB plans to evaluate the equivalency of dosimetric and clinical plan quality.
Methods:
Plan features were computed from historical high-quality PPB treatments (N = 100) and stored in a relational database (RDB). The ML algorithm matched new PPB features to a highly similar case in the RDB; this initial plan configuration was then further optimized using a stochastic search algorithm. PPB pre-plans (N = 30) generated using the ML algorithm were compared to plan variants created by an expert dosimetrist (RT), and radiation oncologist (MD). Planning time and pre-plan dosimetry were evaluated using a one-way Student’s t-test and ANOVA, respectively (significance level = 0.05). Clinical implant quality was evaluated by expert PPB radiation oncologists as part of a qualitative study.
Results:
Average planning time was 0.44 ± 0.42 min compared to 17.88 ± 8.76 min for the ML algorithm and RT, respectively, a significant advantage [t(9), p = 0.01]. A post-hoc ANOVA [F(2,87) = 6.59, p = 0.002] using Tukey-Kramer criteria showed a significantly lower mean prostate V150% for the ML plans (52.9%) compared to the RT (57.3%), and MD (56.2%) plans. Preliminary qualitative study results indicate comparable clinical implant quality between RT and ML plans with a trend towards preference for ML plans.
Conclusion:
PPB pre-treatment plans highly comparable to those of an expert radiation oncologist can be created using a novel ML planning model. The use of an ML-based planning approach is expected to translate into improved PPB accessibility and plan uniformity. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0094-2405 2473-4209 |
DOI: | 10.1118/1.4956882 |