Deep learning‐based optimization of field geometry for total marrow irradiation delivered with volumetric modulated arc therapy
Authors: Lambri Nicola , Longari Giorgio , Loiacono Daniele , Brioso Ricardo Coimbra , Crespi Leonardo , Galdieri Carmela , Lobefalo Francesca , Reggiori Giacomo , Rusconi Roberto , Tomatis Stefano , Bellu Luisa , Bramanti Stefania , Clerici Elena , De Philippis Chiara , Dei Damiano , Navarria Pierina , Carlo‐Stella Carmelo , Franzese Ciro , Scorsetti Marta , Mancosu Pietro 
Published: April 2024

AbstractBackgroundTotal marrow (lymphoid) irradiation (TMI/TMLI) is a radiotherapy treatment used to selectively target the bone marrow and lymph nodes in conditioning regimens for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. A complex field geometry is needed to cover the large planning target volume (PTV) of TMI/TMLI with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Five isocenters and ten overlapping fields are needed for the upper body, while, for patients with large anatomical conformation, two specific isocenters are placed on the arms. The creation of a field geometry is clinically challenging and is performed by a medical physicist (MP) specialized in TMI/TMLI.PurposeTo develop convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for automatically generating the field geometry of TMI/TMLI.MethodsThe dataset comprised 117 patients treated with TMI/TMLI between 2011 and 2023 at our Institute. The CNN input image consisted of three channels, obtained by projecting along the sagittal plane: (1) average CT pixel intensity within the PTV; (2) PTV mask; (3) brain, lungs, liver, bowel, and bladder masks. This “averaged” frontal view combined the information analyzed by the MP when setting the field geometry in the treatment planning system (TPS). Two CNNs were trained to predict the isocenters coordinates and jaws apertures for patients with (CNN‐1) and without (CNN‐2) isocenters on the arms. Local optimization methods were used to refine the models output based on the anatomy of the patient. Model evaluation was performed on a test set of 15 patients in two ways: (1) by computing the root mean squared error (RMSE) between the CNN output and ground truth; (2) with a qualitative assessment of manual and generated field geometries—scale: 1 = not adequate, 4 = adequate—carried out in blind mode by three MPs with different expertise in TMI/TMLI. The Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was used to evaluate the independence of the given scores between manual and generated configurations (p < 0.05 significant).ResultsThe average and standard deviation values of RMSE for CNN‐1 and CNN‐2 before/after local optimization were 15 ± 2/13 ± 3 mm and 16 ± 2/18 ± 4 mm, respectively. The CNNs were integrated into a planning automation software for TMI/TMLI such that the MPs could analyze in detail the proposed field geometries directly in the TPS. The selection of the CNN model to create the field geometry was based on the PTV width to approximate the decision process of an experienced MP and provide a single option of field configuration. We found no significant differences between the manual and generated field geometries for any MP, with median values of 4 versus 4 (p = 0.92), 3 versus 3 (p = 0.78), 4 versus 3 (p = 0.48), respectively. Starting from October 2023, the generated field geometry has been introduced in our clinical practice for prospective patients.ConclusionsThe generated field geometries were clinically acceptable and adequate, even for an MP with high level of expertise in TMI/TMLI. Incorporating the knowledge of the MPs into the development cycle was crucial for optimizing the models, especially in this scenario with limited data.