Predicting objective function weights from patient anatomy in prostate IMRT treatment planning

PURPOSE: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment planning typically combines multiple criteria into a single objective function by taking a weighted sum. The authors propose a statistical model that predicts objective function weights from patient anatomy for prostate IMRT treatment planning. This study provides a proof of concept for geometry-driven weight determination. METHODS: A previously developed inverse optimization method (IOM) was used to generate optimal objective function weights for 24 patients using their historical treatment plans (i.e., dose distributions). These IOM weights were around 1% for each of the femoral heads, while bladder and rectum weights varied greatly between patients. A regression model was developed to predict a patient's rectum weight using the ratio of the overlap volume of the rectum and bladder with the planning target volume at a 1 cm expansion as the independent variable. The femoral head weights were fixed to 1% each and the bladder weight was calculated as one minus the rectum and femoral head weights. The model was validated using leave-one-out cross validation. Objective values and dose distributions generated through inverse planning using the predicted weights were compared to those generated using the original IOM weights, as well as an average of the IOM weights across all patients. RESULTS: The IOM weight vectors were on average six times closer to the predicted weight vectors than to the average weight vector, using l2 distance. Likewise, the bladder and rectum objective values achieved by the predicted weights were more similar to the objective values achieved by the IOM weights. The difference in objective value performance between the predicted and average weights was statistically significant according to a one-sided sign test. For all patients, the difference in rectum V54.3 Gy, rectum V70.0 Gy, bladder V54.3 Gy, and bladder V70.0 Gy values between the dose distributions generated by the predicted weights and IOM weights was less than 5 percentage points. Similarly, the difference in femoral head V54.3 Gy values between the two dose distributions was less than 5 percentage points for all but one patient. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a proof of concept that patient anatomy can be used to predict appropriate objective function weights for treatment planning. In the long term, such geometry-driven weights may serve as a starting point for iterative treatment plan design or may provide information about the most clinically relevant region of the Pareto surface to explore.