Towards Human-Centric Intelligent Treatment Planning for Radiation Therapy

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.13062
• Title: Towards Human-Centric Intelligent Treatment Planning for Radiation Therapy
• Authors: Adnan Jafar, Xun Jia (Johns Hopkins University)
• Classification: physics.med-ph, cs.AI
• Publication Date: October 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.13062

Abstract

Current radiation therapy treatment planning is constrained by suboptimal plan quality, inefficiency, and high costs. This paper explores the complexity of treatment planning and introduces Human-Centric Intelligent Treatment Planning (HCITP)—an AI-driven framework operating under human supervision that integrates clinical guidelines, automated plan generation, and supports direct interaction with operators. HCITP is expected to improve efficiency, potentially reducing planning time to minutes, and provide personalized, high-quality plans. The paper discusses challenges and potential solutions.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition

1. Clinical Urgency: Cancer is the second leading cause of death globally, with 18.74 million new cases and 9.7 million cancer-related deaths reported in 2022. Radiation therapy, as a cornerstone of cancer treatment, benefits more than two-thirds of cancer patients.
2. Core Issues in Current Treatment Planning:
   • Suboptimal Plan Quality: Dependent on planner experience and time allocation, with 9.1% of patients receiving plans with unnecessarily high risk of normal tissue complications
   • Inefficiency: Trial-and-error interactions require hours to days to complete planning
   • High Cost: Requires specialized planners (training cost $145k, median annual salary$140k)
3. Clinical Impact:
   • Suboptimal plans in head-and-neck cancer reduce 2-year overall survival by 20% and increase locoregional failure rate by 24%
   • For high-grade glioma, each day of treatment delay increases mortality risk by 2%
   • Weekly delays in head-and-neck radiotherapy can reduce locoregional control rate by 12-14%

Research Motivation

Traditional treatment planning systems (TPS) lack intelligence and require substantial manual input. With significant advances in AI in medical domains, particularly surpassing human performance in complex decision-making tasks, there is an opportunity to address treatment planning challenges.

Core Contributions

1. Proposes HCITP Framework: The first comprehensive human-machine collaborative intelligent treatment planning framework integrating assessment, execution, and dialogue modules
2. Systematic Problem Analysis: In-depth analysis of fundamental limitations in current treatment planning workflows
3. Technical Architecture Design: Modular design based on foundation models and reinforcement learning
4. Implementation Pathway Planning: Provides comprehensive considerations and solutions from technical development to clinical implementation
5. Interdisciplinary Integration: Deep fusion of AI technology with radiation therapy physics and clinical medicine

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Input: Patient anatomical images, physician prescriptions, clinical guidelines Output: Radiation therapy plans meeting deliverability and acceptability standards Constraints: LINAC physical constraints, clinical safety standards, physician preferences

Model Architecture

HCITP comprises three core decision modules:

1. Evaluation Module

• Technical Foundation: Based on foundation models (FM) and interpretable AI techniques
• Functions:
  • Process multimodal data (clinical protocols, technical guidelines, medical images, treatment plans, clinical notes)
  • Generate contextualized embedded states for evidence-based, case-adaptive assessment
  • Encode physician preferences and practical considerations
• Implementation Details:
  • Language Models: BioBERT, PubMedBERT for clinical guidelines
  • Image Models: nnU-Net, Swin-UNETR for medical imaging
  • NLP Tools: cTAKES, ClinicalBERT for clinical notes
  • Multimodal Fusion: Early fusion, mid-level fusion, late fusion, and hybrid methods

2. Execution Module

• Technical Foundation: Reinforcement Learning (RL) framework
• Functions:
  • Replicate human planner decision-making capabilities
  • Autonomously operate TPS under guidance from evaluation module
  • Generate deliverable treatment plans
• Training Strategy:
  • Reward functions derived from evaluation module
  • Integration of human planning experience
  • Use foundation models as underlying architecture for improved generalizability

3. Conversation Module

• Technical Foundation: Large Language Models (LLM) and speech recognition technology
• Functions:
  • Real-time bidirectional communication
  • Summarize plan quality feedback
  • Request clarification when needed
  • Support real-time dynamic plan optimization

Technical Innovations

1. Unified Framework Design: First to unify deliverability and acceptability standards in a single framework
2. Direct Human-Machine Interaction: Eliminates multi-layer communication between evaluators, planners, and TPS in traditional workflows
3. Continuous Learning Capability: Automatically integrates latest clinical and technical guidelines
4. Multimodal Integration: Handles multiple data types including clinical protocols, medical images, and clinical notes
5. Personalized Adaptation: Learns and adapts to different physician preferences and institutional protocols

Experimental Setup

Dataset Requirements

The paper outlines training data requirements:

• Evaluation Module: Clinical and practical guidelines, physician-specific multimodal treatment plans with corresponding decisions
• Execution Module: Behavioral data of planners operating TPS
• Conversation Module: Dialogue data between physicians and human planners
• Diversity Requirements: Cases encompassing different tumor sites, patient anatomies, and clinical conditions

Evaluation Metrics

• Technical Metrics: Cumulative reward, convergence rate
• Task-Oriented Metrics:
  • Plan quality (measured using established numerical models assessing impact on medical outcomes)
  • Cost-effectiveness analysis (using health economic models)
  • Interpretability (compared with expert human strategies)

Validation Strategy

1. Offline Virtual Testing: Large-scale independent datasets
2. Pilot Studies: Preliminary validation in controlled environments
3. Uncertainty Estimation: Ensemble methods and Monte Carlo dropout
4. Prospective Evaluation: Objective evaluation similar to multi-center clinical trials

Experimental Results

Expected Outcomes

As a prospective research paper, it primarily provides expected outcomes:

1. Efficiency Improvement: Planning time reduced from days to minutes
2. Quality Enhancement: RL exploration discovers new planning strategies, advancing achievable plan quality boundaries
3. Cost Reduction: Decreased reliance on human planners, reducing training and personnel costs
4. Accessibility Enhancement: Particularly expanding radiotherapy services in resource-limited settings

Comparison with Existing Methods

Through literature review, the paper identifies two categories of existing research:

• Category 1: Focus on acceptability standards, primarily predicting optimal dose distributions
• Category 2: Focus on deliverability standards, developing virtual planners to operate TPS

HCITP Advantages:

• Unified treatment of both standards
• Seamless interaction mechanism with physicians
• Continuous learning and adaptation capabilities

Related Work

Existing AI Applications in Treatment Planning

1. Knowledge-Based Planning: Constructing predictive models to derive patient-specific optimal dose-volume histograms (DVH)
2. Deep Learning Methods: Predicting optimal dose distributions for patient anatomy
3. Reinforcement Learning Applications: Developing virtual planners performing comparably to human planners in treatment planning competitions
4. Large Language Models: Exploring autonomous adjustment of organ priority weights

Analogy with Aviation Industry

The paper draws parallels between HCITP and aviation automation:

• Similarities: Integration of automation under expert supervision
• Differences: Radiotherapy involves planner-physician division of labor, increasing communication complexity
• Solution: HCITP positions physicians as central personnel, directly interacting with AI automation

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Framework Feasibility: HCITP provides a unified solution addressing current treatment planning limitations
2. Technical Maturity: Based on existing AI advances, HCITP is technically feasible
3. Clinical Value: Has potential to significantly improve treatment plan quality, efficiency, and reduce costs

Limitations

1. Data Dependency: Requires large quantities of high-quality, multimodal training data
2. Computational Resources: RL training demands substantial computational resources
3. Standardization Challenges: Variability in acceptability and deliverability standards
4. Generalization Capability: Cross-tumor site and population generalization requires validation

Future Directions

1. Technical Development: Lightweight models, cloud computing resource utilization
2. Clinical Implementation: Progressive deployment, user training, regulatory approval
3. Continuous Improvement: Feedback loops, regular audits, performance monitoring
4. Global Expansion: Particular focus on applications in low- and middle-income countries

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Systematic Thinking: The paper not only proposes technical solutions but systematically considers the entire process from development to implementation
2. Interdisciplinary Integration: Successfully integrates AI technology with medical physics and clinical practice
3. Practical Orientation: Directly addresses clinical problems with clear application value
4. Forward-Looking Design: Based on accurate judgment of technology development trends, the design is forward-looking
5. Ethical Considerations: Adequately addresses safety, privacy protection, legal liability, and other concerns

Weaknesses

1. Lack of Experimental Validation: As a prospective paper, lacks actual experimental results
2. Insufficient Technical Details: Some key technical implementation details lack depth
3. Limited Cost-Benefit Analysis: Quantitative analysis of implementation costs and benefits is limited
4. Regulatory Pathway: Discussion of FDA and other regulatory approval pathways is relatively brief
5. Competitive Analysis: Limited comparison with existing commercial solutions

Impact

1. Academic Value: Provides important theoretical framework and development direction for AI applications in radiotherapy
2. Clinical Significance: Has potential to revolutionize radiotherapy treatment planning practice
3. Industry Promotion: May catalyze new medical AI products and services
4. Global Health: Particularly improves cancer treatment accessibility in resource-scarce regions

Applicable Scenarios

1. Developed Country Hospitals: Improve efficiency, reduce costs, enhance quality
2. Resource-Limited Regions: Address professional personnel shortage
3. Online Adaptive Radiotherapy: Meet real-time plan adjustment requirements
4. Educational Training: Provide new tools for medical physics education
5. Research Institutions: Support treatment planning optimization algorithm research

References

The paper includes 62 references covering:

• Radiotherapy physics foundational literature
• AI applications in medicine research
• Treatment planning optimization related work
• Regulatory and ethical consideration literature
• Technology implementation related research

Overall Assessment: This is a paper of significant forward-looking value, providing comprehensive framework design and implementation pathways for AI applications in radiotherapy. While lacking experimental validation, its systematic thinking and interdisciplinary integration point the direction for field development, possessing important academic and clinical significance.