AI End-to-End Radiation Treatment Planning Under One Second
Authors: Simon Arberet, Riqiang Gao, Martin Kraus, Florin C. Ghesu, Wilko Verbakel, Mamadou Diallo, Anthony Magliari, Venkatesan Karuppusamy, Sushil Beriwal, REQUITE Consortium, Ali Kamen, Dorin Comaniciu
Organizations: Digital Technology and Innovation, Siemens Healthineers, Princeton, NJ, USA. · Digital Technology and Innovation, Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany. · Varian Medical Affairs, Siemens Healthineers, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Artificial intelligence-based radiation therapy (RT) planning has the potential to reduce planning time and inter-planner variability, improving efficiency and consistency in clinical workflows. Most existing automated approaches rely on multiple dose evaluations and corrections, resulting in plan generation times of several minutes. We introduce AIRT (Artificial Intelligence-based Radiotherapy), an end-to-end deep-learning framework that directly infers deliverable treatment plans from CT images and structure contours. AIRT generates single-arc VMAT prostate plans, from imaging and anatomical inputs to leaf sequencing, in under one second on a single Nvidia A100 GPU. The framework includes a differentiable dose feedback, an adversarial fluence map shaping, and a plan generation augmentation to improve plan quality and robustness. The model was trained on more than 10,000 intact prostate cases. Non-inferiority to RapidPlan Eclipse was demonstrated across target coverage and OAR sparing metrics. Target homogeneity (HI = 0.10 ± 0.01) and OAR sparing were similar to reference plans when evaluated using AcurosXB. These results represent a significant step toward ultra-fast standardized RT planning and a streamlined clinical workflow.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: AIRT end-to-end pipeline for AI VMAT plan generation.
Dose Evaluation Engine →
DL dose
Eclipse Acuros
Structure
Metric
Eclipse
AI
Eclipse
AI
PTV
HI
0.16 ( 0.03 )*
0.11 ( 0.02 )*
0.10 ( 0.01 )*
0.10 ( 0.01 )*
D98 (Gy)
38.4 ( 0.8 )*
38.8 ( 0.4 )*
39.3 ( 0.2 )
39.3 ( 0.2 )
Bladder
Dmean (Gy)
6.7 ( 3.3 )*
6.9 ( 3.5 )*
7.3 ( 3.5 )*
7.7 ( 3.8 )*
D50 (Gy)
2.9 ( 2.5 )
3.0 ( 2.7 )
3.3 ( 2.7 )*
3.6 ( 3.0 )*
D2 (Gy)
34.8 ( 6.8 )
35.1 ( 6.6 )
35.8 ( 6.0 )*
37.0 ( 5.9 )*
Table 1: Comparison of Eclipse and AIRT planning for intact prostate VMAT cases. All Eclipse plans were optimized using AcurosXB and AIRT plans used the DL dose. For fair comparison, dose for both plan types, was calculated using the DL dose and AcurosXB engines. The Homogeneity Index (HI) is defined as (D2%−D98%)/D50% following the ICRU convention (lower is better). Data are presented as mean (SD). A * indicates p<0.05 (Wilcoxon signed-rank test).
Figure 2: Dose–volume histograms (DVHs) for six cases corresponding to the 0th (minimum), 20th, 40th, 50th (median), 80th, and 100th (maximum) percentiles of PTV size in the validation dataset using Eclipse AcurosXB dose engine.
Relative metrics
Absolute metrics
Fluence-domain
Dose-domain
PTV
Bladder
Rectum
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
MAE ↓
PTV MAE ↓
HI ↓
CI ∼
mean ↓
D2 ↓
mean ↓
D2 ↓
AIRT (-Aug, -DF, -GAN)
29.41
0.944
0.191
1.711
0.162
0.791
6.94
35.48
4.69
28.58
AIRT (-DF, -GAN)
29.68
0.949
0.174
1.569
0.154
0.801
6.71
35.19
4.77
28.82
AIRT (-GAN)
29.67
0.951
0.166
1.293
0.148
0.801
6.93
35.98
4.98
29.43
AIRT (-Aug)
28.70
0.942
0.174
1.167
0.144
0.802
6.76
34.93
5.19
29.39
Table 2: Ablation results for AIRT variants, evaluated on 62 cases of the validation set. Relative metrics are computed in comparison with target plans. Except for the fluence metrics (PSNR and SSIM), all the other metrics are dose-domain metrics, which are computed after leaf sequencing and using the DL dose engine Kraus et al. (2026) . Absolute DVH metrics are reported for PTV, bladder and rectum. “-Aug” indicates that data augmentation was removed, “-DF” that dose feedback was removed, and “-GAN” that adversarial loss was removed. “full” indicates that all the components of the AIRT method are used. Best values per metric are bold. Units: Bladder and Rectum dose metrics are in Gy; PSNR is in dB; SSIM, HI and CI are unitless.
Figure 3: Averaged DVHs (over the 62 cases of the validation dataset) of the AIRT method for various OAR sparing controls. The “(baseline)” planning, in the legend, means that no input OAR sparing control was used (equivalent to sr=sb=0 ). sb=2% in the legend means that the dose feedback mechanism tried to decrease the dose in the bladder by 2% voxel-wise (likewise for the rectum when sr=2% ) compared to its input dose distribution.
Figure 4: Two-stage training of the AIRT end-to-end VMAT planning pipeline. Top: Stage 1 Full pipeline training without adversarial loss. Bottom: Stage 2: Fluence correction network training with adversarial loss.
Appendix figures & tables23 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Name
Type
Definition / Formula
CTV
Target
Prostate∪((Prostate+3mm)∩Seminal Vesicles)
PTV
Target
CTV+3mm
PTV ∩ Rectum
Derived
PTV∩Rectum
PTV Ring
Derived
(PTV+20mm)−(PTV+5mm)
PTV–CTV
Derived
PTV−CTV
50% Ring
Derived
(PTV+50mm)−(PTV+15mm)
Appendix
Table S1 : Target and organ-at-risk (OAR) structures used in our Prostate RapidPlan.
Figure S1 : Architecture of the DoseProposer network.
Figure S2 : Beam’s eye view (BEV) transform.
Figure S3 : Architecture of the Bev2Fluence network.
Figure S4: Two-stage deep learning dose computation. a, The first stage predicts the voxel-wise spherical harmonics coefficients from the planning CT and fluence maps. b, The second computes the 3D dose map from the CT and spherical harmonics coefficients using a MedNeXT network architecture.
Figure S5 : Architecture of Bev2Fluence correction network.
Figure S6 : Architecture of fluence map discriminator network.
Figure S7 : Adversarial fluence shaping results. ( Top ) Mosaic view comparing fluence maps generated by ( a ) AIRT (-GAN, i.e. without adversarial loss), ( b ) AIRT (full, i.e. with adversarial loss), and ( c ) Eclipse clinical plans. ( Bottom ) Zoom-in of representative fluence maps highlighing the improved realism achieved with adversarial training. Both views illustrate the discriminator’s impact in enforcing clinically plausible, approximate two-level structure in generated fluence maps.
DL dose engine
Structure
Metric
Eclipse Plans
AIRT Plans
p-value
PTV
HI
0.16 ± 0.03
0.11 ± 0.02
< 0.001
D98 (Gy)
38.4 ± 0.8
38.8 ± 0.4
< 0.001
Bladder
Dmean (Gy)
6.7 ± 3.3
6.9 ± 3.5
0.01
D50 (Gy)
2.9 ± 2.5
3.0 ± 2.7
0.29
D2 (Gy)
34.8 ± 6.8
35.1 ± 6.6
0.07
Appendix
Table S2 : Comparison of Eclipse and AIRT planning for intact prostate VMAT cases across 4 dose calculation engines. The homogeneity index (HI) is defined as (D2%−D98%)/D50% following the ICRU convention (lower is better). All metrics are reported as mean ± standard deviation over the validation dataset. P-values are from the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
Metric
Mean Diff.
P-value
Non-inferior
Margin
N
PTV HI Mean
0.004
0.00
Yes
0.01
62
PTV HI Median
0.004
0.00
Yes
0.01
62
Bladder Mean Dose
0.392
0.00
Yes
1.50
62
Bladder D50
0.346
0.00
Yes
1.50
62
Bladder D2
1.135
0.03
Yes
1.50
62
Rectum Mean Dose
0.031
0.00
Yes
1.50
62
Appendix
Table S3 : Non-inferiority test results comparing our AI planning to Eclipse planning on DVH metrics evaluated using Eclipse AcurosXB dose engine. A metric is considered non-inferior if the one-sided non-inferiority test is statistically significant (p < 0.05), and the difference does not exceed the predefined margin. Here, the mean difference is reported as the AI metric minus the Eclipse one.
Figure S8 : Dose–volume histograms (DVHs) for six cases corresponding to the 0th (minimum), 20th, 40th, 50th (median), 80th, and 100th (maximum) percentiles of PTV size in the validation dataset using DL dose engine.
Figure S9 : Dose–volume histograms (DVHs) for six cases corresponding to the 0th (minimum), 20th, 40th, 50th (median), 80th, and 100th (maximum) percentiles of PTV size in the validation dataset using LTBS dose engine.
Figure S10 : Dose–volume histograms (DVHs) for six cases corresponding to the 0th (minimum), 20th, 40th, 50th (median), 80th, and 100th (maximum) percentiles of PTV size in the validation dataset using Eclipse AAA dose engine.
Figure S11 : DVHs curves accross all the validation patients showing dose distributions for PTV and OARs using DL dose engine. In bold are the mean curves accross patients.
Figure S12 : DVHs curves accross all the validation patients showing dose distributions for PTV and OARs using LTBS dose engine. In bold are the mean curves accross patients.
Figure S13 : DVHs curves accross all the validation patients showing dose distributions for PTV and OARs using Eclipse AAA dose engine. In bold are the mean curves accross patients.
Figure S14 : DVHs curves accross all the validation patients showing dose distributions for PTV and OARs using Eclipse Acuros dose engine. In bold are the mean curves accross patients.
Figure S15 : Dose distributions evaluated with the DL dose engine for the median validation case (Case 4, as shown in the corresponding DVH figure). Left = reference dose (Eclipse/target), Right = AIRT predicted dose. CT slices and contours overlaid.
Figure S16 : Dose distributions evaluated with the LTBS dose engine for the median validation case (Case 4, as shown in the corresponding DVH figure). Left = reference dose (Eclipse/target), Right = AIRT predicted dose. CT slices and contours overlaid.
Figure S17 : Dose distributions evaluated with the Eclipse AAA dose engine for the median validation case (Case 4, as shown in the corresponding DVH figure). Left = reference dose (Eclipse/target), Right = AIRT predicted dose. CT slices and contours overlaid.
Figure S18 : Dose distributions evaluated with the Eclipse AcurosXB dose engine for the median validation case (Case 4, as shown in the corresponding DVH figure). Left = reference dose (Eclipse/target), Right = AIRT predicted dose. CT slices and contours overlaid.
Figure S19 : Mean DVHs for the PTV, bladder, and rectum, averaged over the entire validation set. Suppression factors are reported as a percentage of the predicted baseline dose. The “baseline” curve corresponds to no additional OAR control ( sb=sr=0 ). The figure shows that parameters sb and sr independently reduce the OAR dose, with an expected tradeoff on the PTV homogeneity, which worsens as OAR sparing increases.
Module
Notes
Compute Time (ms)
DoseProposer pre-processing
Prepare/crop CT and structure tensors
35
DoseProposer
Initial dose prediction
4
BEV Projection (1st pass)
Beam’s eye view (BEV) projection of the dose
56
Bev2Fluence
Dose BEV-to-Fluence network
18
DL Dose Computation
Predicts dose from fluence maps
654
Dose Error Construction ( Err )
Computes 3D dose error map
1
Appendix
Table S4 : Module-wise compute time breakdown for the proposed pipeline.
Radiotherapy (RT) planning is complex, subjective, and time-intensive. Advances with artificial intelligence (AI) promise to improve its precision and efficiency, but progress is often limited by the scarcity of large, standardized datasets. To address this, we introduce the Automated Iterative RT Planning (AIRTP) system, a scalable solution for generating high-quality treatment plans. This scalable solution is designed to generate substantial volumes of consistently high-quality treatment plans, overcoming a key obstacle in the advancement of AI-driven RT planning. Our AIRTP pipeline adheres to clinical guidelines and automates essential steps, including organ-at-risk (OAR) contouring, helper structure creation, beam setup, optimization, and plan quality improvement, using AI integrated with RT planning software like Varian Eclipse. Furthermore, a novel approach for determining optimization parameters to reproduce 3D dose distributions, i.e. a method to convert dose predictions to deliverable treatment plans constrained by machine limitations is proposed. A comparative analysis of plan quality reveals that our automated pipeline produces treatment plans of quality comparable to those generated manually, which traditionally require several hours of labor per plan. Committed to public research, the first data release of our AIRTP pipeline includes nine cohorts covering head-and-neck and lung cancer sites to support an AAPM 2025 challenge. To our best knowledge, this dataset features more than 10 times number of plans compared to the largest existing well-curated public dataset. Repo: https://github.com/RiqiangGao/GDP-HMM_AAPMChallenge.
Riqiang Gao, Mamadou Diallo, Han Liu +10
Digital Technology and Innovation, Siemens Healthineers · 2Varian Medical Systems, Siemens Healthineers · 3UCSD +2
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) is a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy, enabling highly conformal tumor irradiation and healthy-tissue sparing. Yet, its planning solves inverse and nested optimization for multi-leaf collimators, monitor units and dose parameters, while enforcing their consistency to ensure mechanical deliverability. Nevertheless, this process often requires repeated re-optimization when treatment configurations change, resulting in substantial planning time per patient. To address these problems, we present a diffusion-driven Learning-to-Optimize (L2O) method for end-to-end VMAT planning. A distribution-matching distilled diffusion model learns a clinically feasible manifold of fluence maps, enabling their one-shot generation. On top of this, an LSTM-based L2O module learns gradient update dynamics to swiftly refine fluence maps toward prescribed dose objectives during inference. Experimental results on clinical and public prostate cancer cohorts demonstrate improved planning efficiency, flexibility, and machine deliverability over currently available end-to-end VMAT planners.
Isabella Poles, Simon Arberet, Riqiang Gao +5
Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy · Digital Technology and Innovation, Siemens Healthineers, Princeton, NJ, USA · Digital Technology and Innovation, Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany
Automating prostate radiotherapy treatment planning is dosimetrically complex, particularly for extreme hypofractionated regimens. In this study, we introduce Dose-PlanNet, a physics-guided 3D deep learning architecture designed to predict dose distributions. This model's performance was evaluated on a cohort of patients treated in a prospective trial where two different dose fractionation regimens were employed. Dose-PlanNet achieved comparable target coverage (D95), though statistical analysis revealed a marginal reduction in target homogeneity (p<0.001) offset. However the model achieved statistically significant improvements in high-dose organ-at-risk sparing (p<0.001). When evaluated against strict Prospective Randomized protocol volumetric constraints, automated plans met prespecified clinical acceptance criteria in 11 out of 14 Moderate Hypofraction Arm plans and 9 out of 12 Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Arm plans. This pipeline demonstrates that physics-informed deep learning can accelerate radiotherapy workflows while safely maintaining the stringent dosimetric quality required for high-precision clinical deployment.