Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 1, 2025
Dynamic Lung Tumor Tracking for Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiation Therapy
Published on: June 7, 2015
Implementation and evaluation of an intelligent automatic treatment planning robot for prostate cancer stereotactic
Yin Gao1, Chenyang Shen1, Xun Jia1
1Innovative Technology Of Radiotherapy Computations and Hardware (iTORCH) Laboratory, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390, USA.
Purpose:
We previously developed a virtual treatment planner (VTP), an artificial intelligence robot, operating a treatment planning system (TPS). Using deep reinforcement learning guided by human knowledge, we trained the VTP to autonomously adjust relevant parameters in treatment plan optimization, similar to a human planner, to generate high-quality plans for prostate cancer stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). This study describes the clinical implementation and evaluation of VTP.
Materials And Methods:
We integrate VTP with Eclipse TPS using scripting Application Programming Interface. VTP observes dose-volume histograms of relevant structures, decides how to adjust dosimetric constraints, including doses, volumes, and weighting factors, and applies the adjustments to the TPS interface to launch the optimization engine. This process continues until a high-quality plan is achieved. We evaluated VTP's performance using the prostate SBRT case from the 2016 American Association of Medical Dosimetrist/Radiosurgery Society plan study with its plan scoring system, and compared to human-generated plans submitted to the challenge. Using the same scoring system, we also compared the plan quality of 36 prostate SBRT cases (20 planned with IMRT and 16 planned with VMAT) treated at our institution for both VTP and human-generated plans.
Results:
In the plan study case, VTP achieved a score of 142.1/150.0, ranking the third in the competition (median 134.6). For the clinical cases, VTP achieved 110.6 ± 6.5 for 20 IMRT plans and 126.2 ± 4.7 for 16 VMAT plans, similar to scores of human-generated plans with 110.4 ± 7.0 for IMRT plans and 125.4 ± 4.4 for VMAT plans. The workflow, plan quality and planning time of VTP were reviewed to be satisfactory by experienced physicists.
Conclusion:
We successfully implemented VTP to operate a TPS for autonomous human-like treatment planning for prostate SBRT.
