PURPOSE: Without a clear definition of an optimal treatment plan, no optimization model can be perfect. Therefore, instead of automatically finding a single “optimal” plan, finding multiple, yet different near-optimal plans, can be an insightful approach to support radiation oncologists in finding the plan they are looking for. METHODS AND MATERIALS: BRIGHT is a flexible AI-based optimization method for brachytherapy treatment planning that has already been shown capable of finding high-quality plans that trade-off target volume coverage and healthy tissue sparing. We leverage the flexibility of BRIGHT to find plans with similar dose-volume criteria, yet different dose distributions. We further describe extensions that facilitate fast plan adaptation should planning aims need to be adjusted, and straightforwardly allow incorporating hospital-specific aims besides standard protocols. RESULTS: Results are obtained for prostate (n = 12) and cervix brachytherapy (n = 36). We demonstrate the possible differences in dose distribution for optimized plans with equal dose-volume criteria. We furthermore demonstrate that adding hospital-specific aims enables adhering to hospital-specific practice while still being able to automatically create cervix plans that more often satisfy the EMBRACE-II protocol than clinical practice. Finally, we illustrate the feasibility of fast plan adaptation. CONCLUSIONS: Methods such as BRIGHT enable new ways to construct high-quality treatment plans for brachytherapy while offering new insights by making explicit the options one has. In particular, it becomes possible to present to radiation oncologists a manageable set of alternative plans that, from an optimization perspective are equally good, yet differ in terms of coverage-sparing trade-offs and shape of the dose distribution.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to improve upon a recently introduced bi-objective treatment planning method for prostate high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy (BT), both in terms of resulting plan quality and runtime requirements, to the extent that its execution time is clinically acceptable. Methods: Bi-objective treatment planning is done using a state-of-the-art multiobjective evolutionary algorithm, which produces a large number of potential treatment plans with different trade-offs between coverage of the target volumes and sparing organs at risk. A graphics processing unit (GPU) is used for large-scale parallelization of dose calculations and the calculation of the dose-volume (DV) indices of potential treatment plans. Moreover, the objectives of the previously used bi-objective optimization model are modified to produce better results. Results: We applied the GPU-accelerated bi-objective treatment planning method to a set of 18 patients, resulting in a set containing a few hundred potential treatment plans with different trade-offs for each of these patients. Due to accelerations introduced in this article, results previously achieved after 1 hour are now achieved within 30 seconds of optimization. We found plans satisfying the clinical protocol for 15 of 18 patients, whereas this was the case for only 4 of 18 clinical plans. Higher quality treatment plans are obtained when the accuracy of DV index calculation is increased using more dose calculation points, requiring still no more than 3 minutes of optimization for 100 000 points. Conclusions: Large sets of high-quality treatment plans that trade-off coverage and sparing are now achievable within 30 seconds, due to the GPU-acceleration of a previously introduced bi-objective treatment planning method for prostate HDR brachytherapy. Higher quality plans can be achieved when optimizing for 3 minutes, which we still consider to be clinically acceptable. This allows for more insightful treatment plan selection in a clinical setting.

Purpose: To investigate the variation in computed dose-volume (DV) indices for high-dose-rate (HDR) prostate brachytherapy that can result from typical differences in computation settings in treatment planning systems (TPSs). Methods: Five factors were taken into account: number of dose-calculation points, radioactive source description, interpolation between delineated contours, intersections between delineated organ contours, and organ shape at the top and bottom contour using either full or partial slice thickness. Using in-house developed software, the DV indices of the treatment plans of 26 patients were calculated with different settings, and compared to a baseline setting that closely followed the default settings of the TPS used in our medical center. Studied organs were prostate and seminal vesicles, denoted as targets, and bladder, rectum, and urethra, denoted as organs at risk (OARs), which were delineated on MRI scans with a 3.3 mm slice thickness. Results: When sampling a fixed number of points in each organ, in order to achieve a width of the 95% confidence interval over all patients of the DV indices of 1% or less, only 32,000 points had to be sampled per target, but 256,000 points had to be sampled per OAR. For the remaining factors, DV indices changed up to 0.4% for rectum, 1.3% for urethra, and 2.6% for prostate. DV indices of the bladder changed especially if the high-dose-region was (partly) located at the most caudal contour, up to 8.5%, and DV indices of the vesicles changed especially if there were few delineated contours, up to 9.8%, both due to the use of full slice thickness for the top and bottom contour. Conclusions: The values of DV indices used in prostate HDR brachytherapy treatment planning are influenced by the computation settings in a TPS, especially at the most caudal part of the bladder, as well as in the seminal vesicles.

Purpose: Bi-objective treatment planning for high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy is a novel treatment planning method with two separate objectives that represent target coverage and organ-at-risk sparing. In this study, we investigated the feasibility and plan quality of this method by means of a retrospective observer study. Methods and Materials: Current planning sessions were recorded to configure a bi-objective optimization model and to assess its applicability to our clinical practice. Optimization software, GOMEA, was then used to automatically generate a large set of plans with different trade-offs in the two objectives for each of 18 patients treated with high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy. From this set, five plans per patient were selected for comparison to the clinical plan in terms of satisfaction of planning criteria and in a retrospective observer study. Three brachytherapists were asked to evaluate the blinded plans and select the preferred one. Results: Recordings demonstrated applicability of the bi-objective optimization model to our clinical practice. For 14/18 patients, GOMEA plans satisfied all planning criteria, compared with 4/18 clinical plans. In the observer study, in 53/54 cases, a GOMEA plan was preferred over the clinical plan. When asked for consensus among observers, this ratio was 17/18 patients. Observers highly appreciated the insight gained from comparing multiple plans with different trade-offs simultaneously. Conclusions: The bi-objective optimization model adapted well to our clinical practice. GOMEA plans were considered equal or superior to the clinical plans. In addition, presenting multiple high-quality plans provided novel insight into patient-specific trade-offs.