A data-driven approach to optimal beam/arc angle selection for liver stereotactic body radiation therapy treatment planning

Background: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for liver cancer has shown promising therapeutic effects. Effective treatment relies not only on the precise delivery provided by image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) but also high dose gradient formed around the treatment volume to spare functional liver tissue, which is highly dependent on the beam/arc angle selection. In this study, we aim to develop a decision support model to learn human planner's beam navigation approach for beam angle/arc angle selection for liver SBRT. Methods: A total of 27 liver SBRT/HIGRT patients (10 IMRT, 17 VMAT/DCA) were included in this study. A dosimetric budget index was defined for each beam angle/control point considering dose penetration through the patient body and liver tissue. Optimal beam angle setting (beam angles for IMRT and start/terminal angle for VMAT/DCA) was determined by minimizing the loss function defined as the sum of total dosimetric budget index and beam span penalty function. Leave-one-out validation was exercised on all 27 cases while weighting coefficients in the loss function was tuned in nested cross validation. To compare the efficacy of the model, a model plan was generated using automatically generated beam setting while retaining the original optimization constraints in the clinical plan. Model plan was normalized to the same PTV V100% as the clinical plans. Dosimetric endpoints including PTV D98%, D2%, liver V20Gy and total MU were compared between two plan groups. Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test was performed with the null hypothesis being that no difference exists between two plan groups. Results: Beam setting prediction was instantaneous. Mean PTV D98% was 91.3% and 91.3% (P=0.566), while mean PTV D2% was 107.9% and 108.1% (P=0.164) for clinical plan and model plan respectively. Liver V20Gy showed no significant difference (P=0.590) with 23.3% for clinical plan and 23.4% for the model plan. Total MU is comparable (P=0.256) between the clinical plan (avg. 2,389.6) and model plan (avg. 2,319.6). Conclusions: The evidence driven beam setting model yielded similar plan quality as hand-crafted clinical plan. It is capable of capturing human's knowledge in beam selection decision making. This model could facilitate decision making for beam angle selection while eliminating lengthy trial-and-error process of adjusting beam setting during liver SBRT treatment planning.