Knowledge-based IMRT treatment planning for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate the feasibility of using a knowledge base of prior treatment plans to generate new prostate intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans. Each new case would be matched against others in the knowledge base. Once the best match is identified, that clinically approved plan is used to generate the new plan. METHODS: A database of 100 prostate IMRT treatment plans was assembled into an information-theoretic system. An algorithm based on mutual information was implemented to identify similar patient cases by matching 2D beam's eye view projections of contours. Ten randomly selected query cases were each matched with the most similar case from the database of prior clinically approved plans. Treatment parameters from the matched case were used to develop new treatment plans. A comparison of the differences in the dose-volume histograms between the new and the original treatment plans were analyzed. RESULTS: On average, the new knowledge-based plan is capable of achieving very comparable planning target volume coverage as the original plan, to within 2% as evaluated for D98, D95, and D1. Similarly, the dose to the rectum and dose to the bladder are also comparable to the original plan. For the rectum, the mean and standard deviation of the dose percentage differences for D20, D30, and D50 are 1.8% +/- 8.5%, -2.5% +/- 13.9%, and -13.9% +/- 23.6%, respectively. For the bladder, the mean and standard deviation of the dose percentage differences for D20, D30, and D50 are -5.9% +/- 10.8%, -12.2% +/- 14.6%, and -24.9% +/- 21.2%, respectively. A negative percentage difference indicates that the new plan has greater dose sparing as compared to the original plan. CONCLUSIONS: The authors demonstrate a knowledge-based approach of using prior clinically approved treatment plans to generate clinically acceptable treatment plans of high quality. This semiautomated approach has the potential to improve the efficiency of the treatment planning process while ensuring that high quality plans are developed.

Adaptive intervention design in mobile health: Intervention design and development in the Cell Phone Intervention for You trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The obesity epidemic has spread to young adults, and obesity is a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease. The prominence and increasing functionality of mobile phones may provide an opportunity to deliver longitudinal and scalable weight management interventions in young adults. The aim of this article is to describe the design and development of the intervention tested in the Cell Phone Intervention for You study and to highlight the importance of adaptive intervention design that made it possible. The Cell Phone Intervention for You study was a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-sponsored, controlled, 24-month randomized clinical trial comparing two active interventions to a usual-care control group. Participants were 365 overweight or obese (body mass index≥25 kg/m2) young adults. METHODS: Both active interventions were designed based on social cognitive theory and incorporated techniques for behavioral self-management and motivational enhancement. Initial intervention development occurred during a 1-year formative phase utilizing focus groups and iterative, participatory design. During the intervention testing, adaptive intervention design, where an intervention is updated or extended throughout a trial while assuring the delivery of exactly the same intervention to each cohort, was employed. The adaptive intervention design strategy distributed technical work and allowed introduction of novel components in phases intended to help promote and sustain participant engagement. Adaptive intervention design was made possible by exploiting the mobile phone's remote data capabilities so that adoption of particular application components could be continuously monitored and components subsequently added or updated remotely. RESULTS: The cell phone intervention was delivered almost entirely via cell phone and was always-present, proactive, and interactive-providing passive and active reminders, frequent opportunities for knowledge dissemination, and multiple tools for self-tracking and receiving tailored feedback. The intervention changed over 2 years to promote and sustain engagement. The personal coaching intervention, alternatively, was primarily personal coaching with trained coaches based on a proven intervention, enhanced with a mobile application, but where all interactions with the technology were participant-initiated. CONCLUSION: The complexity and length of the technology-based randomized clinical trial created challenges in engagement and technology adaptation, which were generally discovered using novel remote monitoring technology and addressed using the adaptive intervention design. Investigators should plan to develop tools and procedures that explicitly support continuous remote monitoring of interventions to support adaptive intervention design in long-term, technology-based studies, as well as developing the interventions themselves.