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
[11]   Evaluation of the sensitivity of two 3D diode array dosimetry systems to setup error for quality assurance (QA) of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) [J].
Li, Guangjun ;
Bai, Sen ;
Chen, Nianyong ;
Henderson, Lansdale ;
Wu, Kui ;
Xiao, Jianghong ;
Zhang, Yingjie ;
Jiang, Qingfeng ;
Jiang, Xiaoqin .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2013, 14 (05) :13-24
[12]   Machine Learning for Patient-Specific Quality Assurance of VMAT: Prediction and Classification Accuracy [J].
Li, Jiaqi ;
Wang, Le ;
Zhang, Xile ;
Liu, Lu ;
Li, Jun ;
Chan, Maria F. ;
Sui, Jing ;
Yang, Ruijie .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2019, 105 (04) :893-902
[13]  
Low DA., 2010, J PHYS C SERIES
[14]   A synthesized gamma distribution-based patient-specific VMAT QA using a generative adversarial network [J].
Matsuura, Takaaki ;
Kawahara, Daisuke ;
Saito, Akito ;
Yamada, Kiyoshi ;
Ozawa, Shuichi ;
Nagata, Yasushi .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2023, 50 (04) :2488-2498
[15]   A survey of intensity-modulated radiation therapy use in the United States [J].
Mell, LK ;
Roeske, JC ;
Mundt, AJ .
CANCER, 2003, 98 (01) :204-211
[16]   Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement-based verification QA: Recommendations of AAPM Task Group No. 218 [J].
Miften, Moyed ;
Olch, Arthur ;
Mihailidis, Dimitris ;
Moran, Jean ;
Pawlicki, Todd ;
Molineu, Andrea ;
Li, Harold ;
Wijesooriya, Krishni ;
Shi, Jie ;
Xia, Ping ;
Papanikolaou, Nikos ;
Low, Daniel A. .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2018, 45 (04) :E53-E83
[17]   Error detection during VMAT delivery using EPID-based 3D transit dosimetry [J].
Mijnheer, B. ;
Jomehzadeh, A. ;
Gonzalez, P. ;
Olaciregui-Ruiz, I ;
Rozendaal, R. ;
Shokrani, P. ;
Spreeuw, H. ;
Tielenburg, R. ;
Mans, A. .
PHYSICA MEDICA-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2018, 54 :137-145
[18]   Per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errors [J].
Nelms, Benjamin E. ;
Zhen, Heming ;
Tome, Wolfgang A. .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2011, 38 (02) :1037-1044
[19]   Deep learning for patient-specific quality assurance: Identifying errors in radiotherapy delivery by radiomic analysis of gamma images with convolutional neural networks [J].
Nyflot, Matthew J. ;
Thammasorn, Phawis ;
Wootton, Landon S. ;
Ford, Eric C. ;
Chaovalitwongse, W. Art .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2019, 46 (02) :456-464
[20]   Applications of machine and deep learning to patient-specific IMRT/VMAT quality assurance [J].
Osman, Alexander F. I. ;
Maalej, Nabil M. .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2021, 22 (09) :20-36