WE-AB-209-12: Quasi Constrained Multi-Criteria Optimization for Automated Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning




To introduce quasi-constrained Multi-Criteria Optimization (qcMCO) for unsupervised radiation therapy optimization which generates alternative patient-specific plans emphasizing dosimetric tradeoffs and conformance to clinical constraints for multiple delivery techniques.


For N Organs At Risk (OARs) and M delivery techniques, qcMCO generates M(N+1) alternative treatment plans per patient. Objective weight variations for OARs and targets are used to generate alternative qcMCO plans. For 30 locally advanced lung cancer patients, qcMCO plans were generated for dosimetric tradeoffs to four OARs: each lung, heart, and esophagus (N=4) and 4 delivery techniques (simple 4-field arrangements, 9-field coplanar IMRT, 27-field non-coplanar IMRT, and non-coplanar Arc IMRT). Quasi-constrained objectives included target prescription isodose to 95% (PTV-D95), maximum PTV dose (PTV-Dmax)< 110% of prescription, and spinal cord Dmax<45 Gy. The algorithm's ability to meet these constraints while simultaneously revealing dosimetric tradeoffs was investigated. Statistically significant dosimetric tradeoffs were defined such that the coefficient of determination between dosimetric indices which varied by at least 5 Gy between different plans was >0.8.


The qcMCO plans varied mean dose by >5 Gy to ipsilateral lung for 24/30 patients, contralateral lung for 29/30 patients, esophagus for 29/30 patients, and heart for 19/30 patients. In the 600 plans computed without human interaction, average PTV-D95=67.4±3.3 Gy, PTV-Dmax=79.2±5.3 Gy, and spinal cord Dmax was >45 Gy in 93 plans (>50 Gy in 2/600 plans). Statistically significant dosimetric tradeoffs were evident in 19/30 plans, including multiple tradeoffs of at least 5 Gy between multiple OARs in 7/30 cases. The most common statistically significant tradeoff was increasing PTV-Dmax to reduce OAR dose (15/30 patients).


The qcMCO method can conform to quasi-constrained objectives while revealing significant variations in OAR doses including mean dose reductions >5 Gy. Clinical implementation will facilitate patient-specific decision making based on achievable dosimetry as opposed to accept/reject models based on population derived objectives.