Direct incorporation of patient‐specific efficacy and toxicity estimates in radiation therapy plan optimization
Authors: Polan Daniel F , Epelman Marina A , Wu Victor W , Sun Yilun , Varsta Markus , Owen Daniel R , Jarema David , Matrosic Charles K , Jolly Shruti , Schonewolf Caitlin A , Schipper Matthew J , Matuszak Martha M 
Published: August 2022

Purpose

Current radiation therapy (RT) treatment planning relies mainly on pre‐defined dose‐based objectives and constraints to develop plans that aim to control disease while limiting damage to normal tissues during treatment. These objectives and constraints are generally population‐based, in that they are developed from the aggregate response of a broad patient population to radiation. However, correlations of new biologic markers and patient‐specific factors to treatment efficacy and toxicity provide the opportunity to further stratify patient populations and develop a more individualized approach to RT planning. We introduce a novel intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) optimization strategy that directly incorporates patient‐specific dose response models into the planning process. In this strategy, we integrate the concept of utility‐based planning where the optimization objective is to maximize the predicted value of overall treatment utility, defined by the probability of efficacy (e.g., local control) minus the weighted sum of toxicity probabilities. To demonstrate the feasibility of the approach, we apply the strategy to treatment planning for non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.

Methods and materials

We developed a prioritized approach to patient‐specific IMRT planning. Using a commercial treatment planning system (TPS), we calculate dose based on an influence matrix of beamlet‐dose contributions to regions‐of‐interest. Then, outside of the TPS, we hierarchically solve two optimization problems to generate optimal beamlet weights that can then be imported back to the TPS. The first optimization problem maximizes a patient's overall plan utility subject to typical clinical dose constraints. In this process, we facilitate direct optimization of efficacy and toxicity trade‐off based on individualized dose‐response models. After optimal utility is determined, we solve a secondary optimization problem that minimizes a conventional dose‐based objective subject to the same clinical dose constraints as the first stage but with the addition of a constraint to maintain the optimal utility from the first optimization solution. We tested this method by retrospectively generating plans for five previously treated NSCLC patients and comparing the prioritized utility plans to conventional plans optimized with only dose metric objectives. To define a plan utility function for each patient, we utilized previously published correlations of dose to local control and grade 3–5 toxicities that include patient age, stage, microRNA levels, and cytokine levels, among other clinical factors.

Results

The proposed optimization approach successfully generated RT plans for five NSCLC patients that improve overall plan utility based on personalized efficacy and toxicity models while accounting for clinical dose constraints. Prioritized utility plans demonstrated the largest average improvement in local control (16.6%) when compared to plans generated with conventional planning objectives. However, for some patients, the utility‐based plans resulted in similar local control estimates with decreased estimated toxicity.

Conclusion

The proposed optimization approach, where the maximization of a patient's RT plan utility is prioritized over the minimization of standardized dose metrics, has the potential to improve treatment outcomes by directly accounting for variability within a patient population. The implementation of the utility‐based objective function offers an intuitive, humanized approach to biological optimization in which planning trade‐offs are explicitly optimized.