Background: Head and neck cancer (HNC) is characterized by complex-shaped tumors and numerous organs at risk (OARs), inducing challenging radiotherapy (RT) planning, optimization, and delivery. In this review, we provided a thorough description of the applications of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the HNC RT process. Methods: The PubMed database was queried, and a total of 168 articles (2016–2022) were screened by a group of experts in radiation oncology. The group selected 62 articles, which were subdivided into three categories, representing the whole RT workflow: (i) target and OAR contouring, (ii) planning, and (iii) delivery. Results: The majority of the selected studies focused on the OARs segmentation process. Overall, the performance of AI models was evaluated using standard metrics, while limited research was found on how the introduction of AI could impact clinical outcomes. Additionally, papers usually lacked information about the confidence level associated with the predictions made by the AI models. Conclusions: AI represents a promising tool to automate the RT workflow for the complex field of HNC treatment. To ensure that the development of AI technologies in RT is effectively aligned with clinical needs, we suggest conducting future studies within interdisciplinary groups, including clinicians and computer scientists.

This topical review focuses on the applications of artificial intelligence (AI) tools to stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). The high dose per fraction and the limited number of fractions in SBRT require stricter accuracy than standard radiation therapy. The intent of this review is to describe the development and evaluate the possible benefit of AI tools integration into the radiation oncology workflow for SBRT automation. The selected papers were subdivided into four sections, representative of the whole radiotherapy process: ‘AI in SBRT target and organs at risk contouring’, ‘AI in SBRT planning’, ‘AI during the SBRT delivery’, and ‘AI for outcome prediction after SBRT’. Each section summarises the challenges, as well as limits and needs for improvement to achieve better integration of AI tools in the clinical workflow.

Background: The total marrow and lymph node irradiation (TMLI) target includes the bones, spleen, and lymph node chains, with the latter being the most challenging structures to contour. We evaluated the impact of introducing internal contour guidelines to reduce the inter- and intraobserver lymph node delineation variability in TMLI treatments. Methods: A total of 10 patients were randomly selected from our database of 104 TMLI patients so as to evaluate the guidelines’ efficacy. The lymph node clinical target volume (CTV_LN) was recontoured according to the guidelines (CTV_LN_GL_RO1) and compared to the historical guidelines (CTV_LN_Old). Both topological (i.e., Dice similarity coefficient (DSC)) and dosimetric (i.e., V95 (the volume receiving 95% of the prescription dose) metrics were calculated for all paired contours. Results: The mean DSCs were 0.82 ± 0.09, 0.97 ± 0.01, and 0.98 ± 0.02, respectively, for CTV_LN_Old vs. CTV_LN_GL_RO1, and between the inter- and intraobserver contours following the guidelines. Correspondingly, the mean CTV_LN-V95 dose differences were 4.8 ± 4.7%, 0.03 ± 0.5%, and 0.1 ± 0.1%. Conclusions: The guidelines reduced the CTV_LN contour variability. The high target coverage agreement revealed that historical CTV-to-planning-target-volume margins were safe, even if a relatively low DSC was observed.

Background: Radiotherapy is essential in the management of head–neck cancer. During the course of radiotherapy, patients may develop significant anatomical changes. Re-planning with adaptive radiotherapy may ensure adequate dose coverage and sparing of organs at risk. We investigated the consequences of adaptive radiotherapy on head–neck cancer patients treated with volumetric-modulated arc radiation therapy compared to simulated non-adaptive plans: Materials and methods: We included in this retrospective dosimetric analysis 56 patients treated with adaptive radiotherapy. The primary aim of the study was to analyze the dosimetric differences with and without an adaptive approach for targets and organs at risk, particularly the spinal cord, parotid glands, oral cavity and larynx. The original plan (OPLAN) was compared to the adaptive plan (APLAN) and to a simulated non-adaptive dosimetric plan (DPLAN). Results: The non-adaptive DPLAN, when compared to OPLAN, showed an increased dose to all organs at risk. Spinal cord D2 increased from 27.91 (21.06–31.76) Gy to 31.39 (27.66–38.79) Gy (p = 0.00). V15, V30 and V45 of the DPLAN vs. the OPLAN increased by 20.6% (p = 0.00), 14.78% (p = 0.00) and 15.55% (p = 0.00) for right parotid; and 16.25% (p = 0.00), 18.7% (p = 0.00) and 20.19% (p = 0.00) for left parotid. A difference of 36.95% was observed in the oral cavity V40 (p = 0.00). Dose coverage was significantly reduced for both CTV (97.90% vs. 99.96%; p = 0.00) and PTV (94.70% vs. 98.72%; p = 0.00). The APLAN compared to the OPLAN had similar values for all organs at risk. Conclusions: The adaptive strategy with re-planning is able to avoid an increase in dose to organs at risk and better target coverage in head–neck cancer patients, with potential benefits in terms of side effects and disease control.

Purpose: To assess the impact of the planner's experience and optimization algorithm on the plan quality and complexity of total marrow and lymphoid irradiation (TMLI) delivered by means of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) over 2010–2022 at our institute.Methods: Eighty‐two consecutive TMLI plans were considered. Three complexity indices were computed to characterize the plans in terms of leaf gap size, irregularity of beam apertures, and modulation complexity. Dosimetric points of the target volume (D2%) and organs at risk (OAR) (Dmean) were automatically extracted to combine them with plan complexity and obtain a global quality score (GQS). The analysis was stratified based on the different optimization algorithms used over the years, including a knowledge‐based (KB) model. Patient‐specific quality assurance (QA) using Portal Dosimetry was performed retrospectively, and the gamma agreement index (GAI) was investigated in conjunction with plan complexity.Results: Plan complexity significantly reduced over the years (r = −0.50, p < 0.01). Significant differences in plan complexity and plan dosimetric quality among the different algorithms were observed. Moreover, the KB model allowed to achieve significantly better dosimetric results to the OARs. The plan quality remained similar or even improved during the years and when moving to a newer algorithm, with GQS increasing from 0.019 ± 0.002 to 0.025 ± 0.003 (p < 0.01). The significant correlation between GQS and time (r = 0.33, p = 0.01) indicated that the planner's experience was relevant to improve the plan quality of TMLI plans. Significant correlations between the GAI and the complexity metrics (r = −0.71, p < 0.01) were also found.Conclusion: Both the planner's experience and algorithm version are crucial to achieve an optimal plan quality in TMLI plans. Thus, the impact of the optimization algorithm should be carefully evaluated when a new algorithm is introduced and in system upgrades. Knowledge‐based strategies can be useful to increase standardization and improve plan quality of TMLI treatments.

Purpose: Total marrow (and lymphoid) irradiation (TMI-TMLI) is limited by the couch travel range of modern linacs, which forces the treatment delivery to be split into two plans with opposite orientations: a head-first supine upper-body plan, and a feet-first supine lower extremities plan. A specific field junction is thus needed to obtain adequate target coverage in the overlap region of the two plans. In this study, an automatic procedure was developed for field junction creation and lower extremities plan optimization. Methods: Ten patients treated with TMI-TMLI at our institution were selected retrospectively. The planning of the lower extremities was performed automatically. Target volume parameters (CTV_J‑V_98% > 98%) at the junction region and several dose statistics (D_98%, D_mean, and D_2%) were compared between automatic and manual plans. The modulation complexity score (MCS) was used to assess plan complexity. Results: The automatic procedure required 60–90 min, depending on the case. All automatic plans achieved clinically acceptable dosimetric results (CTV_J‑V_98% > 98%), with significant differences found at the junction region, where D_mean and D_2% increased on average by 2.4% (p < 0.03) and 3.0% (p < 0.02), respectively. Similar plan complexity was observed (median MCS = 0.12). Since March 2022, the automatic procedure has been introduced in our clinic, reducing the TMI-TMLI simulation-to-delivery schedule by 2 days. Conclusion: The developed procedure allowed treatment planning of TMI-TMLI to be streamlined, increasing efficiency and standardization, preventing human errors, while maintaining the dosimetric plan quality and complexity of manual plans. Automated strategies can simplify the future adoption and clinical implementation of TMI-TMLI treatments in new centers.