A hyperparameter-tuning approach to automated inverse planning

TL;DR

This paper explores hyperparameter-tuning methods, specifically random sampling and Bayesian optimization, to automate and improve the inverse planning process in radiotherapy, reducing planning time while maintaining or enhancing plan quality.

Contribution

It introduces a hyperparameter-tuning framework that does not rely on training data, allowing flexible and efficient automated inverse planning in radiotherapy.

Findings

Automated plans achieved similar or better quality than manual plans.

Planning time was significantly reduced with stopping criteria.

Bayesian optimization and random sampling both effectively tuned plan parameters.

Abstract

Radiotherapy inverse planning often requires planners to modify parameters in the treatment planning system's objective function to produce clinically acceptable plans. Due to the manual steps in this process, plan quality can vary depending on the planning time available and the planner's skills. This study investigates two hyperparameter-tuning methods for automated inverse planning. Because this framework does not train a model on previously-optimized plans, it can be readily adapted to practice pattern changes, and plan quality is not limited by that of a training cohort. We selected 10 patients who received lung SBRT using manually-generated clinical plans. We used random sampling (RS) and Bayesian optimization (BO) to tune parameters using linear-quadratic utility functions based on 11 clinical goals. Normalizing all plans to have PTV D95 equal to 48 Gy, we compared plan quality for the automatically-generated and manually-generated plans. We also investigated the impact of iteration count on the automatically-generated plans, comparing planning time and plan utility for RS and BO plans with and without stopping criteria. Without stopping criteria, the median planning time was 1.9 and 2.3 hours for RS and BO plans. The OAR doses in the RS and BO plans had a median percent difference (MPD) of 48.7% and 60.4% below clinical dose limits and an MPD of 2.8% and 3.3% below clinical plan doses. With stopping criteria, the utility decreased by an MPD of 5.3% and 3.9% for RS and BO plans, but the median planning time was reduced to 0.5 and 0.7 hours, and the OAR doses still had an MPD of 42.9% and 49.7% below clinical dose limits and an MPD of 0.3% and 1.8% below clinical plan doses. This study demonstrates that hyperparameter-tuning approaches to automated inverse planning can reduce active planning time with plan quality that is similar to or better than manually-generated plans.