Deep learning-based fast denoising of Monte Carlo dose calculation in carbon ion radiotherapy

被引:6
作者
Zhang, Xinyang [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Zhang, Hui [1 ,2 ,3 ,5 ]
Wang, Jian [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Ma, Yuanyuan [1 ,2 ,3 ,5 ]
Liu, Xinguo [1 ,2 ,3 ,5 ]
Dai, Zhongying [1 ,2 ,3 ,5 ]
He, Rui [1 ,6 ]
He, Pengbo [1 ,2 ,3 ,5 ,7 ]
Li, Qiang [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ,7 ]
机构
[1] Chinese Acad Sci, Inst Modern Phys, Lanzhou, Peoples R China
[2] Chinese Acad Sci, Key Lab Heavy Ion Radiat Biol & Med, Lanzhou, Peoples R China
[3] Key Lab Basic Res Heavy Ion Radiat Applicat Med, Lanzhou, Gansu, Peoples R China
[4] Univ Chinese Acad Sci, Beijing, Peoples R China
[5] Putian Lanhai Nucl Med Res Ctr, Putian, Peoples R China
[6] Lanzhou Univ, Sch Nucl Sci & Technol, Lanzhou, Peoples R China
[7] Chinese Acad Sci, Inst Modern Phys, 509 Nanchang Rd, Lanzhou 730000, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
carbon ion radiotherapy; deep learning; gamma passing rate; Monte Carlo simulation; plan verification; PENCIL-BEAM MODEL; PROTON THERAPY; QUALITY-ASSURANCE; SIMULATION; TOOLKIT; PHOTON; GATE;
D O I
10.1002/mp.16719
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
BackgroundPlan verification is one of the important steps of quality assurance (QA) in carbon ion radiotherapy. Conventional methods of plan verification are based on phantom measurement, which is labor-intensive and time-consuming. Although the plan verification method based on Monte Carlo (MC) simulation provides a more accurate modeling of the physics, it is also time-consuming when simulating with a large number of particles. Therefore, how to ensure the accuracy of simulation results while reducing simulation time is the current difficulty and focus.PurposeThe purpose of this work was to evaluate the feasibility of using deep learning-based MC denoising method to accelerate carbon-ion radiotherapy plan verification.MethodsThree models, including CycleGAN, 3DUNet and GhostUNet with Ghost module, were used to denoise the 1 x 106 carbon ions-based MC dose distribution to the accuracy of 1 x 108 carbon ions-based dose distribution. The CycleGAN's generator, 3DUNet and GhostUNet were all derived from the 3DUNet network. A total of 59 cases including 29 patients with head-and-neck cancers and 30 patients with lung cancers were collected, and 48 cases were randomly selected as the training set of the CycleGAN network and six cases as the test set. For the 3DUNet and GhostUNet models, the numbers of training set, validation set, and test set were 47, 6, and 6, respectively. Finally, the three models were evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively using RMSE and three-dimensional gamma analysis (3 mm, 3%).ResultsThe three end-to-end trained models could be used for denoising the 1 x 106 carbon ions-based dose distribution, and their generalization was proved. The GhostUNet obtained the lowest RMSE value of 0.075, indicating the smallest difference between its denoised and 1 x 108 carbon ions-based dose distributions. The average gamma passing rate (GPR) between the GhostUNet denoising-based versus 1 x 108 carbon ions-based dose distributions was 99.1%, higher than that of the CycleGAN at 94.3% and the 3DUNet at 96.2%. Among the three models, the GhostUNet model had the fewest parameters (4.27 million) and the shortest training time (99 s per epoch) but achieved the best denoising results.ConclusionThe end-to-end deep network GhostUNet outperforms the CycleGAN, 3DUNet models in denoising MC dose distributions for carbon ion radiotherapy. The network requires less than 5 s to denoise a sample of MC simulation with few particles to obtain a qualitative and quantitative result comparable to the dose distribution simulated by MC with relatively large number particles, offering a significant reduction in computation time.
引用
收藏
页码:7314 / 7323
页数:10
相关论文
共 43 条
[1]   GEANT4-a simulation toolkit [J].
Agostinelli, S ;
Allison, J ;
Amako, K ;
Apostolakis, J ;
Araujo, H ;
Arce, P ;
Asai, M ;
Axen, D ;
Banerjee, S ;
Barrand, G ;
Behner, F ;
Bellagamba, L ;
Boudreau, J ;
Broglia, L ;
Brunengo, A ;
Burkhardt, H ;
Chauvie, S ;
Chuma, J ;
Chytracek, R ;
Cooperman, G ;
Cosmo, G ;
Degtyarenko, P ;
Dell'Acqua, A ;
Depaola, G ;
Dietrich, D ;
Enami, R ;
Feliciello, A ;
Ferguson, C ;
Fesefeldt, H ;
Folger, G ;
Foppiano, F ;
Forti, A ;
Garelli, S ;
Giani, S ;
Giannitrapani, R ;
Gibin, D ;
Cadenas, JJG ;
González, I ;
Abril, GG ;
Greeniaus, G ;
Greiner, W ;
Grichine, V ;
Grossheim, A ;
Guatelli, S ;
Gumplinger, P ;
Hamatsu, R ;
Hashimoto, K ;
Hasui, H ;
Heikkinen, A ;
Howard, A .
NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH SECTION A-ACCELERATORS SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT, 2003, 506 (03) :250-303
[2]   Online daily adaptive proton therapy [J].
Albertini, Francesca ;
Matter, Michael ;
Nenoff, Lena ;
Zhang, Ye ;
Lomax, Antony .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2020, 93 (1107)
[3]   Deep dose plugin: towards real-time Monte Carlo dose calculation through a deep learning-based denoising algorithm [J].
Bai, Ti ;
Wang, Biling ;
Nguyen, Dan ;
Jiang, Steve .
MACHINE LEARNING-SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2021, 2 (02)
[4]  
Bangert M, 2017, MED PHYS, V44, P3067
[5]   A Monte Carlo Determination of Dose and Range Uncertainties for Preclinical Studies with a Proton Beam [J].
Bongrand, Arthur ;
Koumeir, Charbel ;
Villoing, Daphnee ;
Guertin, Arnaud ;
Haddad, Ferid ;
Metivier, Vincent ;
Poirier, Freddy ;
Potiron, Vincent ;
Servagent, Noel ;
Supiot, Stephane ;
Delpon, Gregory ;
Chiavassa, Sophie .
CANCERS, 2021, 13 (08)
[6]   Monte Carlo dose calculations and radiobiological modelling: analysis of the effect of the statistical noise of the dose distribution on the probability of tumour control [J].
Buffa, FM ;
Nahum, AE .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2000, 45 (10) :3009-3023
[7]   Report of the AAPM Task Group No. 105: Issues associated with clinical implementation of Monte Carlo-based photon and electron external beam treatment planning [J].
Chetty, Indrin J. ;
Curran, Bruce ;
Cygler, Joanna E. ;
DeMarco, John J. ;
Ezzell, Gary ;
Faddegon, Bruce A. ;
Kawrakow, Iwan ;
Keall, Paul J. ;
Liu, Helen ;
Ma, C. -M. Charlie ;
Rogers, D. W. O. ;
Seuntjens, Jan ;
Sheikh-Bagheri, Daryoush ;
Siebers, Jeffrey V. .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2007, 34 (12) :4818-4853
[8]   A comparison of Monte Carlo dose calculation denoising techniques [J].
El Naqa, I ;
Kawrakow, I ;
Fippel, M ;
Siebers, JV ;
Lindsay, PE ;
Wickerhauser, MV ;
Vicic, M ;
Zakarian, K ;
Kauffmann, N ;
Deasy, JO .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2005, 50 (05) :909-922
[9]   Generative Adversarial Networks [J].
Goodfellow, Ian ;
Pouget-Abadie, Jean ;
Mirza, Mehdi ;
Xu, Bing ;
Warde-Farley, David ;
Ozair, Sherjil ;
Courville, Aaron ;
Bengio, Yoshua .
COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, 2020, 63 (11) :139-144
[10]   A Monte Carlo pencil beam scanning model for proton treatment plan simulation using GATE/GEANT4 [J].
Grevillot, L. ;
Bertrand, D. ;
Dessy, F. ;
Freud, N. ;
Sarrut, D. .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2011, 56 (16) :5203-5219