Development and Clinical Validation of a Protocol-Agnostic Machine Learning Platform for Automated Treatment Planning in External-Beam Radiotherapy

Purpose: To develop and validate a protocol-agnostic machine learning platform ("Predictive Planning") for knowledge-based planning (KBP) in external-beam radiotherapy.Materials and Methods: 5334 retrospective photon-beam treatment plans (1145 Head and Neck (H&N), 1623 Thoracic, 781 Abdominal, 1785 Pelvis) from two institutions were used to develop and internally test general-purpose models for organ-at-risk (OAR) dose-volume histogram prediction.Models were deployed in a commercial system (Plan AI, Sun Nuclear Corporation), and 72 retrospective clinical plans (CP) (18 H&N, 20 Thoracic, 17 Abdominal, 17 Pelvis) were re-planned using treatment planning system optimization objectives predicted by the models ("Predictive Plans"; PP), without objective value changes.Dose metrics were compared for 25, 11, 8, and 7 OARs for H&N, Thoracic, Abdominal, and Pelvis plans, respectively, and for PTVs. Results:In the plan comparison study, there were no OAR dose metrics for which PP were statistically significantly greater than CP.For H&N, PP mean dose (Gy) was significantly lower for Brain (5.8 vs. 7.3, p=0.0003),Brainstem (9.6 vs. 13.8,p<0.0001),Glottis (26.9 vs. 31.9,p=0.0017),OpticChiasm (7.3 vs. 12.2, p<0.0001),Parotid_L/R (19.0/20.8 vs. 22.3/25.7,p<0.0001/<0.0001)and SpinalCord (10.1 vs. 15.7,p<0.0001).For Abdominal, PP mean dose was significantly lower for Heart (2.2 vs. 3.4, p=0.0039),Kidney_R (6.2 vs. 8.6, p=0.002),SpinalCanal (4.8 vs. 6.7,p=0.0004), and Stomach (9.1 vs. 10.9, p=0.002).For Pelvis, PP mean dose was significantly lower for Bladder (30.7 vs. 33.7,p<0.0001),Femur_Head_L/R (13.8/13.9 vs. 17.0/16.5,p=0.0026/0.0046),PenileBulb (15.8 vs. 21.9,p=0.0039), and Rectum (28.1 vs. 34.2,p=0.0002).Mean PTV coverage was significantly higher for H&N and Thoracic, and equivalent for Abdominal and Pelvis. Conclusions:Predictive Planning represents a shift in KBP from protocol-specific models trained with small, uniform datasets to protocol-agnostic, disease-site-specific models trained with large, heterogenous datasets.Plans generated using optimization objectives predicted by the models had equivalent or superior dosimetric outcomes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Advances in Radiation Oncology
Published
2026-04-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2026.102036
Primary Topic
Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Development and Clinical Validation of a Protocol-Agnostic Machine Learning Platform for Automated Treatment Planning in External-Beam Radiotherapy

Michael R. Bowers, Wolfgang A. Tomé, Harry Quon, Christian Velten et al.
Advances in Radiation Oncology
Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
article

Development and Clinical Validation of a Protocol-Agnostic Machine Learning Platform for Automated Treatment Planning in External-Beam Radiotherapy

Michael R. Bowers, Wolfgang A. Tomé, Harry Quon, Christian Velten, Daniel Y. Song, Julie K. Shade, Thomas Lilieholm, Siddharth Kapoor, Peter Hoban, T.R. McNutt, David Murray, Pranav Lakshminarayanan, Kevin Gorman, Tyler Smith, Saida Muktar Reshid
article en

Abstract

Purpose: To develop and validate a protocol-agnostic machine learning platform ("Predictive Planning") for knowledge-based planning (KBP) in external-beam radiotherapy.Materials and Methods: 5334 retrospective photon-beam treatment plans (1145 Head and Neck (H&N), 1623 Thoracic, 781 Abdominal, 1785 Pelvis) from two institutions were used to develop and internally test general-purpose models for organ-at-risk (OAR) dose-volume histogram prediction.Models were deployed in a commercial system (Plan AI, Sun Nuclear Corporation), and 72 retrospective clinical plans (CP) (18 H&N, 20 Thoracic, 17 Abdominal, 17 Pelvis) were re-planned using treatment planning system optimization objectives predicted by the models ("Predictive Plans"; PP), without objective value changes.Dose metrics were compared for 25, 11, 8, and 7 OARs for H&N, Thoracic, Abdominal, and Pelvis plans, respectively, and for PTVs. Results:In the plan comparison study, there were no OAR dose metrics for which PP were statistically significantly greater than CP.For H&N, PP mean dose (Gy) was significantly lower for Brain (5.8 vs. 7.3, p=0.0003),Brainstem (9.6 vs. 13.8,p<0.0001),Glottis (26.9 vs. 31.9,p=0.0017),OpticChiasm (7.3 vs. 12.2, p<0.0001),Parotid_L/R (19.0/20.8 vs. 22.3/25.7,p<0.0001/<0.0001)and SpinalCord (10.1 vs. 15.7,p<0.0001).For Abdominal, PP mean dose was significantly lower for Heart (2.2 vs. 3.4, p=0.0039),Kidney_R (6.2 vs. 8.6, p=0.002),SpinalCanal (4.8 vs. 6.7,p=0.0004), and Stomach (9.1 vs. 10.9, p=0.002).For Pelvis, PP mean dose was significantly lower for Bladder (30.7 vs. 33.7,p<0.0001),Femur_Head_L/R (13.8/13.9 vs. 17.0/16.5,p=0.0026/0.0046),PenileBulb (15.8 vs. 21.9,p=0.0039), and Rectum (28.1 vs. 34.2,p=0.0002).Mean PTV coverage was significantly higher for H&N and Thoracic, and equivalent for Abdominal and Pelvis. Conclusions:Predictive Planning represents a shift in KBP from protocol-specific models trained with small, uniform datasets to protocol-agnostic, disease-site-specific models trained with large, heterogenous datasets.Plans generated using optimization objectives predicted by the models had equivalent or superior dosimetric outcomes.

Advances in Radiation Oncology
Albert Einstein College of Medicine (US), Montefiore Medical Center (US), Johns Hopkins University (US), Johns Hopkins Medicine (US), EOSPACE (United States) (US), DigitalSpace (United States) (US)
National Science Foundation, Johns Hopkins University, National Cancer Institute
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 23%
Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.