Benchmark system for radiation therapy planning

• US 9,463,336 B2
• Filed: 10/11/2013
• Issued: 10/11/2016
• Est. Priority Date: 09/20/2013
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Sun Nuclear Corporation (American Capital Limited)
• Original Assignee: Sun Nuclear Corporation (American Capital Limited)
• Inventors: Nelms, Benjamin E.
• Primary Examiner(s): Midkiff, Anastasia
• Application Number:
  US14/051,752
• Publication Number:
  US 20150087879A1
• Time in Patent Office: 1,096 Days
• Field of Search: 378/64, 378/65, 378/91, 378/162, 378/165, 378/210, 378/901
• US Class Current: 1/1
• CPC Class Codes: A61B 6/50 specially adapted for specific body parts; specially adapted for specific clinical applications
• CPC Class Codes: A61B 6/5294 involving using additional data, e.g. patient information, image labeling, acquisition parameters
• CPC Class Codes: A61B 6/58 Testing, adjusting or calibrating thereof
• CPC Class Codes: A61N 2005/1041 using a library of previously administered radiation treatment applied to other patients
• CPC Class Codes: A61N 5/103 Treatment planning systems
• CPC Class Codes: A61N 5/1031 using a specific method of dose optimization
• CPC Class Codes: A61N 5/1039 using functional images, e.g. PET or MRI
• CPC Class Codes: A61N 5/1045 using a multi-leaf collimator, e.g. for intensity modulated radiation therapy or IMRT
• CPC Class Codes: A61N 5/1048 Monitoring, verifying, controlling systems and methods
• CPC Class Codes: A61N 5/1071 for verifying the dose delivered by the treatment plan
• CPC Class Codes: A61N 5/1075 for testing, calibrating, or quality assurance of the radiation treatment apparatus
• CPC Class Codes: A61N 5/1077 Beam delivery systems

Abstract

A system for evaluating radiation treatment planning generates a fictitious treatment dose matrix with a quality of dose placement beyond that achievable with physically realizable radiation therapy machines. Such a fictitious treatment dose matrix provides an objective measure that is readily tailored to different clinical situations, and although unattainable, thereby provides a benchmark allowing evaluation of radiation plan goals and the radiation plans between different multiple clinical situations and individuals.

Claims

1. A system comprising:

at least one programmable processor; and

a non-transient machine-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one programmable processor, cause the at least one programmable processor to perform operations comprising;

(a) receive a subset of radiation planning data for a given patient selected from a set of;

anatomy volume contours and target volume prescriptions;

(b) generate a fictitious treatment dose matrix from the subset of radiation planning data with a modeling process wherein the subset and the modeling process are selected so that the fictitious treatment dose matrix provides a quality of dose placement beyond that achievable with a physically realizable radiation therapy machine;

(c) receive radiation planning information selected from the group consisting of radiation plan goals for the given patient and a clinical radiation therapy plan for the given patient;

(d) evaluate the radiation planning information against the fictitious treatment dose matrix; and

(e) output the evaluation.

2. The system of claim 1 wherein the evaluation provides a quantitative comparison of the radiation planning information against the fictitious treatment dose matrix.

3. The system of claim 1 wherein the subset of radiation planning data is only anatomy volume contours and target volume prescriptions.

4. The system of claim 1 wherein the radiation planning information is radiation plan goals and further including the step of evaluating the fictitious treatment dose matrix against goal values of the radiation plan goals to indicate a difficulty of attaining the radiation plan goals.

5. The system of claim 4 wherein the evaluation indicates probable impossibility of attaining at least a portion of the radiation plan goals.

6. The system of claim 5 wherein goal values of the radiation plan goals that exceed those obtained by the fictitious treatment dose matrix are indicated to be impossible.

7. The system of claim 4 wherein the evaluation indicates a range of multiple levels of difficulty between attainable and probably impossible for goal values of different portions of the radiation plan goals.

8. The system of claim 7 wherein the program includes empirical data providing a histogram of degrees of goal attainment for human dose planners for given goal categories and wherein the multiple levels of difficulty for each goal category are based on the histogram for a corresponding goal category referenced against the evaluation of the fictitious treatment dose matrix against the goal category.

9. The system of claim 4 wherein the radiation plan goals include goal categories and goal values and wherein the goal categories are selected from the group of maximum dose to healthy tissue regions, minimum dose to treated tissue regions, treatment homogeneity, and treatment conformation.

10. The system of claim 4 wherein the output provides a table separately displaying the radiation plan goals and an assessment of the difficulty of attaining the goal values of each goal based on the fictitious treatment dose matrix.

11. The system of claim 2 wherein the subset and the modeling process are selected so that the fictitious treatment dose matrix provides a dose gradient no greater than that resulting from Compton scattering.

12. The system of claim 1 wherein the quality of the fictitious treatment dose matrix is determined by at least one of a quantitative dose range, a quantitative conformance, and a quantitative dose homogeneity.

13. The system of claim 1 wherein the radiation planning information is a clinical radiation therapy plan for the given individual and including the step of evaluating the fictitious radiation dose matrix and a clinical dose matrix of the clinical radiation therapy plan against common radiation plan metrics and wherein the evaluation compares an extent to which the fictitious radiation plan and clinical radiation therapy plan achieve the radiation plan metrics.

14. The system of claim 13 including the step of the combining of comparisons of the extent to which the fictitious radiation dose matrix and the dose matrix of the clinical radiation therapy plan achieve different radiation plan metrics into a single evaluation for the clinical radiation therapy plan.

15. The system of claim 13 wherein the radiation plan metrics include metric categories and metric values and wherein the metric categories are selected from the group of maximum dose to healthy tissue regions, minimum dose to treated tissue regions, treatment homogeneity, and treatment conformation.

16. The system of claim 13 wherein output provides a table separately displaying the radiation plan metrics and an assessment of the clinical radiation therapy plan for each radiation plan metric.

17. A system comprising:

at least one programmable processor; and

a non-transient machine-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one programmable processor, cause the at least one programmable processor to perform operations comprising;

(a) receive a subset of radiation planning data for a given patient selected from a set of;

anatomy volume contours and target volume prescriptions;

(b) generate a fictitious treatment dose matrix from the subset of radiation planning data with a modeling process, wherein the subset and the modeling process are selected so that the fictitious treatment dose matrix provides a dose gradient no greater than that resulting from Compton scattering;

(c) receive radiation planning information selected from the group consisting of radiation plan goals for the given patient and a clinical radiation therapy plan for the given patient;

(d) evaluate the radiation planning information against the fictitious treatment dose matrix, wherein the evaluation provides a quantitative comparison of the radiation planning information against the fictitious treatment dose matrix; and

(e) output the evaluation.

18. A system comprising:

at least one programmable processor; and

a non-transient machine-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one programmable processor, cause the at least one programmable processor to perform operations comprising;

(a) receive a subset of radiation planning data for a given patient selected from a set of;

anatomy volume contours and target volume prescriptions;

(b) generate a fictitious treatment dose matrix from the subset of radiation planning data with a modeling process;

(c) receive radiation planning information selected from the group consisting of radiation plan goals for the given patient and a clinical radiation therapy plan for the given patient, wherein the radiation planning information is radiation plan goals;

(d) evaluate the radiation planning information against the fictitious treatment dose matrix, wherein the evaluation indicates probable impossibility of attaining at least a portion of the radiation plan goals;

(e) evaluate the fictitious treatment dose matrix against goal values of the radiation plan goals to indicate a difficulty of attaining the radiation plan goals; and

(f) output the evaluation.

19. The system of claim 18 wherein goal values of the radiation plan goals that exceed those obtained by the fictitious treatment dose matrix are indicated to be impossible.