Error detection for radiotherapy planning validation based on deep learning networks

被引:0
作者
Liu, Shupeng [1 ,2 ]
Ma, Jianhui [2 ]
Tang, Fan [2 ]
Liang, Yuqi [2 ]
Li, Yanning [2 ]
Li, Zihao [3 ]
Wang, Tingting [3 ]
Zhou, Meijuan [1 ]
机构
[1] Southern Med Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, Guangdong Prov Key Lab Trop Dis Res, NMPA Key Lab Safety Evaluat Cosmet,Dept Radiat Med, Guangzhou 510515, Guangdong, Peoples R China
[2] Southern Med Univ, Nanfang Hosp, Dept Radiat Oncol, Guangzhou, Guangdong, Peoples R China
[3] Southern Med Univ, Nanfang Hosp, Dept Clin Engineer, Guangzhou, Guangdong, Peoples R China
来源
JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS | 2024年 / 25卷 / 08期
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
CNN multi-classification model; error detection; GPR method; three-dimensional dose validation; VOLUMETRIC-MODULATED ARC; IMRT QA; RADIATION-THERAPY; QUALITY-ASSURANCE; CLINICAL IMPLEMENTATION; RADIOMIC ANALYSIS; DOSIMETRY; DELIVERY; 3D; SENSITIVITY;
D O I
10.1002/acm2.14372
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
BackgroundQuality assurance (QA) of patient-specific treatment plans for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) necessitates prior validation. However, the standard methodology exhibits deficiencies and lacks sensitivity in the analysis of positional dose distribution data, leading to difficulties in accurately identifying reasons for plan verification failure. This issue complicates and impedes the efficiency of QA tasks.PurposeThe primary aim of this research is to utilize deep learning algorithms for the extraction of 3D dose distribution maps and the creation of a predictive model for error classification across multiple machine models, treatment methodologies, and tumor locations.MethodWe devised five categories of validation plans (normal, gantry error, collimator error, couch error, and dose error), conforming to tolerance limits of different accuracy levels and employing 3D dose distribution data from a sample of 94 tumor patients. A CNN model was then constructed to predict the diverse error types, with predictions compared against the gamma pass rate (GPR) standard employing distinct thresholds (3%, 3 mm; 3%, 2 mm; 2%, 2 mm) to evaluate the model's performance. Furthermore, we appraised the model's robustness by assessing its functionality across diverse accelerators.ResultsThe accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 scores of CNN model performance were 0.907, 0.925, 0.907, and 0.908, respectively. Meanwhile, the performance on another device is 0.900, 0.918, 0.900, and 0.898. In addition, compared to the GPR method, the CNN model achieved better results in predicting different types of errors.ConclusionWhen juxtaposed with the GPR methodology, the CNN model exhibits superior predictive capability for classification in the validation of the radiation therapy plan on different devices. By using this model, the plan validation failures can be detected more rapidly and efficiently, minimizing the time required for QA tasks and serving as a valuable adjunct to overcome the constraints of the GPR method.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 32 条
[1]   Advances in radiation therapy: Conventional to 3D, to IMRT, to 4D, and beyond [J].
Bucci, MK ;
Bevan, A ;
Roach, M .
CA-A CANCER JOURNAL FOR CLINICIANS, 2005, 55 (02) :117-134
[2]   ROC analysis in patient specific quality assurance [J].
Carlone, Marco ;
Cruje, Charmainne ;
Rangel, Alejandra ;
McCabe, Ryan ;
Nielsen, Michelle ;
MacPherson, Miller .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2013, 40 (04)
[3]   Guidance document on delivery, treatment planning, and clinical implementation of IMRT: Report of the IMRT subcommittee of the AAPM radiation therapy committee [J].
Ezzell, GA ;
Galvin, JM ;
Low, D ;
Palta, JR ;
Rosen, I ;
Sharpe, MB ;
Xia, P ;
Xiao, Y ;
Xing, L ;
Yu, CX .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2003, 30 (08) :2089-2115
[4]   IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119 [J].
Ezzell, Gary A. ;
Burmeister, Jay W. ;
Dogan, Nesrin ;
LoSasso, Thomas J. ;
Mechalakos, James G. ;
Mihailidis, Dimitris ;
Molineu, Andrea ;
Palta, Jatinder R. ;
Ramsey, Chester R. ;
Salter, Bill J. ;
Shi, Jie ;
Xia, Ping ;
Yue, Ning J. ;
Xiao, Ying .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2009, 36 (11) :5359-5373
[5]   AAPM Task Group 198 Report: An implementation guide for TG 142 quality assurance of medical accelerators [J].
Hanley, Joseph ;
Dresser, Sean ;
Simon, William ;
Flynn, Ryan ;
Klein, Eric E. ;
Letourneau, Daniel ;
Liu, Chihray ;
Yin, Fang-Fang ;
Arjomandy, Bijan ;
Ma, Lijun ;
Aguirre, Francisco ;
Jones, Jimmy ;
Bayouth, John ;
Holmes, Todd .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2021, 48 (10) :E830-E885
[6]   A K-fold averaging cross-validation procedure [J].
Jung, Yoonsuh ;
Hu, Jianhua .
JOURNAL OF NONPARAMETRIC STATISTICS, 2015, 27 (02) :167-179
[7]   Error detection model developed using a multi-task convolutional neural network in patient-specific quality assurance for volumetric-modulated arc therapy [J].
Kimura, Yuto ;
Kadoya, Noriyuki ;
Oku, Yohei ;
Kajikawa, Tomohiro ;
Tomori, Seiji ;
Jingu, Keiichi .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2021, 48 (09) :4769-4783
[8]   Error detection using a convolutional neural network with dose difference maps in patient-specific quality assurance for volumetric modulated arc therapy [J].
Kimura, Yuto ;
Kadoya, Noriyuki ;
Tomori, Seiji ;
Oku, Yohei ;
Jingu, Keiichi .
PHYSICA MEDICA-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2020, 73 :57-64
[9]   On the insensitivity of single field planar dosimetry to IMRT inaccuracies [J].
Kruse, Jon J. .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2010, 37 (06) :2516-2524
[10]   Institutional Patient-specific IMRT QA Does Not Predict Unacceptable Plan Delivery [J].
Kry, Stephen F. ;
Molineu, Andrea ;
Kerns, James R. ;
Faught, Austin M. ;
Huang, Jessie Y. ;
Pulliam, Kiley B. ;
Tonigan, Jackie ;
Alvarez, Paola ;
Stingo, Francesco ;
Followill, David S. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2014, 90 (05) :1195-1201