Error detection and classification in patient-specific IMRT QA with dual neural networks

被引:30
作者
Potter, Nicholas J. [1 ]
Mund, Karl [1 ]
Andreozzi, Jacqueline M. [1 ]
Li, Jonathan G. [1 ]
Liu, Chihray [1 ]
Yan, Guanghua [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Florida, Dept Radiat Oncol, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA
关键词
classification; error detection; IMRT QA; machine learning; QUALITY-ASSURANCE; QUANTITATIVE-EVALUATION; RADIOMIC ANALYSIS; DOSE CALCULATION; DOSIMETRY; DELIVERY;
D O I
10.1002/mp.14416
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
Purpose Despite being the standard metric in patient-specific quality assurance (QA) for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), gamma analysis has two shortcomings: (a) it lacks sensitivity to small but clinically relevant errors (b) it does not provide efficient means to classify the error sources. The purpose of this work is to propose a dual neural network method to achieve simultaneous error detection and classification in patient-specific IMRT QA. Methods For a pair of dose distributions, we extracted the dose difference histogram (DDH) for the low dose gradient region and two signed distance-to-agreement (sDTA) maps (one in x direction and one in y direction) for the high dose gradient region. An artificial neural network (ANN) and a convolutional neural network (CNN) were designed to analyze the DDH and the two sDTA maps, respectively. The ANN was trained to detect and classify six classes of dosimetric errors: incorrect multileaf collimator (MLC) transmission (+/- 1%) and four types of monitor unit (MU) scaling errors (+/- 1% and +/- 2%). The CNN was trained to detect and classify seven classes of spatial errors: incorrect effective source size, 1 mm MLC leaf bank overtravel or undertravel, 2 mm single MLC leaf overtravel or undertravel, and device misalignment errors (1 mm in x- or y direction). An in-house planar dose calculation software was used to simulate measurements with errors and noise introduced. Both networks were trained and validated with 13 IMRT plans (totaling 88 fields). A fivefold cross-validation technique was used to evaluate their accuracy. Results Distinct features were found in the DDH and the sDTA maps. The ANN perfectly identified all four types of MU scaling errors and the specific accuracies for the classes of no error, MLC transmission increase, MLC transmission decrease were 98.9%, 96.6%, and 94.3%, respectively. For the CNN, the largest confusion occurred between the 1-mm-MLC bank overtravel class and the 1-mm-device alignment error in x-direction class, which brought the specific accuracies down to 90.9% and 92.0%, respectively. The specific accuracy for the 2-mm-single MLC leaf undertravel class was 93.2% as it misclassified 5.7% of the class as being error free (false negative). Otherwise, the specific accuracy was above 95%. The overall accuracies across the fivefold were 98.3 +/- 0.7% and 95.6% +/- 1.5% for the ANN and the CNN, respectively. Conclusions Both the DDH and the sDTA maps are suitable features for error classification in IMRT QA. The proposed dual neural network method achieved simultaneous error detection and classification with excellent accuracy. It could be used in complement with the gamma analysis to potentially shift the IMRT QA paradigm from passive pass/fail analysis to active error detection and root cause identification.
引用
收藏
页码:4711 / 4720
页数:10
相关论文
共 22 条
[1]   Monitoring daily MLC positional errors using trajectory log files and EPID measurements for IMRT and VMAT deliveries [J].
Agnew, A. ;
Agnew, C. E. ;
Grattan, M. W. D. ;
Hounsell, A. R. ;
McGarry, C. K. .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2014, 59 (09) :N49-N63
[2]   Implementation of phantom-less IMRT delivery verification using Varian DynaLog files and R/V output [J].
Agnew, C. E. ;
King, R. B. ;
Hounsell, A. R. ;
McGarry, C. K. .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2012, 57 (21) :6761-6777
[3]   A software toes for the quantitative evaluation of 3D dose calculation algorithms [J].
Harms, WB ;
Low, DA ;
Wong, JW ;
Purdy, JA .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 1998, 25 (10) :1830-1836
[4]   Deep nets vs expert designed features in medical physics: An IMRT QA case study [J].
Interian, Yannet ;
Rideout, Vincent ;
Kearney, Vasant P. ;
Gennatas, Efstathios ;
Morin, Olivier ;
Cheung, Joey ;
Solberg, Timothy ;
Valdes, Gilmer .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2018, 45 (06) :2672-2680
[5]   Treatment Planning System Calculation Errors Are Present in Most Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston Phantom Failures [J].
Kerns, James R. ;
Stingo, Francesco ;
Followill, David S. ;
Howell, Rebecca M. ;
Melancon, Adam ;
Kry, Stephen F. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2017, 98 (05) :1197-1203
[6]   ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks [J].
Krizhevsky, Alex ;
Sutskever, Ilya ;
Hinton, Geoffrey E. .
COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, 2017, 60 (06) :84-90
[7]   On the insensitivity of single field planar dosimetry to IMRT inaccuracies [J].
Kruse, Jon J. .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2010, 37 (06) :2516-2524
[8]   Radiation Therapy Deficiencies Identified During On-Site Dosimetry Visits by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston Quality Assurance Center [J].
Kry, Stephen F. ;
Dromgoole, Lainy ;
Alvarez, Paola ;
Leif, Jessica ;
Molineu, Andrea ;
Taylor, Paige ;
Followill, David S. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2017, 99 (05) :1094-1100
[9]   Predicting gamma passing rates for portal dosimetry-based IMRT QA using machine learning [J].
Lam, Dao ;
Zhang, Xizhe ;
Li, Harold ;
Yang Deshan ;
Schott, Brayden ;
Zhao, Tianyu ;
Zhang, Weixiong ;
Mutic, Sasa ;
Sun, Baozhou .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2019, 46 (10) :4666-4675
[10]   Evaluation of the gamma dose distribution comparison method [J].
Low, DA ;
Dempsey, JF .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2003, 30 (09) :2455-2464