Systems and methods for optimizing radiotherapy planning using plan quality scores

Patent metadata

Field	Value
Publication number	US-2024212822-A1
Application number	US-202218086331-A
Country	US
Kind code	A1
Filing date	Dec 21, 2022
Priority date	Dec 21, 2022
Publication date	Jun 27, 2024
Grant date	—

Abstract

Systems and methods for radiation treatment planning can include a computing system optimizing an objective function to determine a radiotherapy plan. The objection function can be defined in terms of one or more optimization objectives related to parameters of the radiotherapy plan. The computer system can compute a quality score of the radiotherapy plan based on the parameters of the radiotherapy plan. The quality score can be defined in terms of one or more quality metrics. The computer system can determine whether the quality score satisfies one or more criteria, and adjust one or more parameters of the objective function upon determining that the quality score does not satisfy the one or more criteria. If the quality score is determined to satisfy the one or more criteria, the computer system can provide the parameters of the radiotherapy plan as output.

First claim

What is claimed is:

1 . A method of radiation treatment planning comprising:
optimizing, by the one or more processors, an objective function to determine a radiotherapy plan, the objection function defined in terms of one or more optimization objectives related to parameters of the radiotherapy plan; computing, by the one or more processors, a quality score of the radiotherapy plan based on the parameters of the radiotherapy plan, the quality score defined in terms of one or more quality metrics; determining, by the one or more processors, whether the quality score satisfies one or more criteria; and adjusting, by the one or more processors, one or more parameters of the objective function upon determining that the quality score does not satisfy the one or more criteria.

2 . The method of claim 1 , further comprising:
optimizing the objective function with the adjusted one or more parameters to determine a second radiotherapy plan; computing a second quality score of the second radiotherapy plan based on second parameters of the second radiotherapy plan; determining whether the second quality score satisfies the one or more criteria; and adjusting the one or more parameters of the objective function upon determining that the second quality score does not satisfy the one or more criteria.

3 . The method of claim 2 , comprising:
providing, by the one or more processors, the second parameters of the second radiotherapy plan as output, upon determining that the second quality score satisfies the one or more criteria.

4 . The method of claim 1 , wherein adjusting the one or more parameters of the objective function includes adjusting one or more weights of the one or more optimization objectives.

5 . The method of claim 1 , wherein the one or more quality metrics correspond to one or more clinical objectives that are different from the one or more optimization objectives.

6 . The method of claim 1 , further comprising:
estimating, by the one or more processors, an approximation of a Jacobian of the one or more quality metrics with respect to the one or more parameters of the objective function; and adjusting, by the one or more processors, the one or more parameters of the objective function based on the approximation of the Jacobian.

7 . The method of claim 6 , wherein estimating the approximation of a Jacobian of the one or more quality metrics with respect to the one or more parameters of the objective function includes at least one of:
estimating, by the one or more processors, a first approximation of the Jacobian based on intuitive relations between the one or more parameters of the objective function and the one or more quality metrics; or estimating, by the one or more processors, a second approximation of the Jacobian based on one or more variations of the one or more quality metrics as the one or more parameters of the objective function are adjusted.

8 . The method of claim 7 , further comprising:
determining, by the one or more processors, a third approximation of the Jacobian as a weighted sum of the first approximation and the second approximation; and adjusting, by the one or more processors, the one or more parameters of the objective function based on the third approximation of the Jacobian.

9 . The method of claim 7 , wherein estimating the second approximation of the Jacobian includes modeling at least one quality metric of the one or more quality metrics as a regression model.

10 . The method of claim 1 , wherein adjusting the one or more parameters of the objective function includes:
predicting, by the one or more processors, a change to a quality metric of the one or more quality metrics; and adjusting, by the one or more processors, a parameter of the one or more parameters of the objective function based on the predicted change to the quality metric.

11 . A radiation treatment planning system comprising:
one or more processors; and a non-transitory memory to store computer code instructions, the computer code instructions when executed cause the one or more processors to:
optimize an objective function to determine a radiotherapy plan, the objection function defined in terms of one or more optimization objectives related to parameters of the radiotherapy plan;
compute a quality score of the radiotherapy plan based on the parameters of the radiotherapy plan, the quality score defined in terms of one or more quality metrics;
determine whether the quality score satisfies one or more criteria; and
adjust one or more parameters of the objective function upon determining that the quality score does not satisfy the one or more criteria.

12 . The radiation treatment planning system of claim 11 , wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
optimize the objective function with the adjusted one or more parameters to determine a second radiotherapy plan; compute a second quality score of the second radiotherapy plan based on second parameters of the second radiotherapy plan; determine whether the second quality score satisfies the one or more criteria; and adjust the one or more parameters of the objective function upon determining that the second quality score does not satisfy the one or more criteria.

13 . The radiation treatment planning system of claim 11 , wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
provide the second parameters of the second radiotherapy plan as output, upon determining that the second quality score satisfies the one or more criteria.

14 . The radiation treatment planning system of claim 11 , wherein the one or more quality metrics correspond to one or more clinical objectives that are different from the one or more optimization objectives.

15 . The radiation treatment planning system of claim 11 , wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
estimate an approximation of a Jacobian of the one or more quality metrics with respect to the one or more parameters of the objective function; and adjust the one or more parameters of the objective function based on the approximation of the Jacobian.

16 . The radiation treatment planning system of claim 15 , wherein in estimating the approximation of a Jacobian of the one or more quality metrics with respect to the one or more parameters of the objective function, the one or more processors are configured to perform at least one of:
estimate a first approximation of the Jacobian based on intuitive relations between the one or more parameters of the objective function and the one or more quality metrics; or estimate a second approximation of the Jacobian based on one or more variations of the one or more quality metrics as the one or more parameters of the objective function are adjusted.

17 . The radiation treatment planning system of claim 16 , wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
determine a third approximation of the Jacobian as a weighted sum of the first approximation and the second approximation; and adjust the one or more parameters of the objective function based on the third approximation of the Jacobian.

18 . The radiation treatment planning system of claim 16 , wherein in estimating the second approximation of the Jacobian the one or more processors are configured to model at least one quality metric of the one or more quality metrics as a regression model.

19 . The radiation treatment planning system of claim 11 , wherein in adjusting the one or more parameters of the objective function t

Assignees

• Siemens Healthineers Int Ag

Inventors

• Peltola Jarkko
• Suhonen Pauli Mikael

Classifications

• A61N5/103 Primary

  Treatment planning systems · CPC title

• G16H20/40 Primary

  relating to mechanical, radiation or invasive therapies, e.g. surgery, laser therapy, dialysis or acupuncture · CPC title