Multi-task autoencoder based classification-regression model for patient-specific VMAT QA

被引:31
|
作者
Wang, Le [1 ,2 ,4 ]
Li, Jiaqi [3 ,5 ]
Zhang, Shuming [3 ]
Zhang, Xile [3 ]
Zhang, Qilin [3 ]
Chan, Maria F. [6 ]
Yang, Ruijie [3 ]
Sui, Jing [1 ,2 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Chinese Acad Sci, Brainnetome Ctr, Beijing, Peoples R China
[2] Chinese Acad Sci, Inst Automat, Natl Lab Pattern Recognit, Beijing, Peoples R China
[3] Peking Univ Third Hosp, Dept Radiat Oncol, Beijing, Peoples R China
[4] Chinese Acad Sci, Univ Chinese Acad Sci, CAS Ctr Excellence Brain Sci & Intelligence Techn, Inst Automat, Beijing, Peoples R China
[5] Capital Med Univ, Beijing Childrens Hosp, Beijing, Peoples R China
[6] Mem Sloan Kettering Canc Ctr, Dept Med Phys, New York, NY 10021 USA
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
VMAT QA; patient-specific QA; deep learning; radiotherapy; QUALITY-ASSURANCE; RADIOMIC ANALYSIS; IMRT; MODULATION; COMPLEXITY; RADIOTHERAPY; RAPIDARC; BEAMS;
D O I
10.1088/1361-6560/abb31c
中图分类号
R318 [生物医学工程];
学科分类号
0831 ;
摘要
Patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to assure accurate treatment delivery is resource-intensive and time-consuming. Recently, machine learning has been increasingly investigated in PSQA results prediction. However, the classification performance of models at different criteria needs further improvement and clinical validation (CV), especially for predicting plans with low gamma passing rates (GPRs). In this study, we developed and validated a novel multi-task model called autoencoder based classification-regression (ACLR) for VMAT PSQA. The classification and regression were integrated into one model, both parts were trained alternatively while minimizing a defined loss function. The classification was used as an intermediate result to improve the regression accuracy. Different tasks of GPRs prediction and classification based on different criteria were trained simultaneously. Balanced sampling techniques were used to improve the prediction accuracy and classification sensitivity for the unbalanced VMAT plans. Fifty-four metrics were selected as inputs to describe the plan modulation-complexity and delivery-characteristics, while the outputs were PSQA GPRs. A total of 426 clinically delivered VMAT plans were used for technical validation (TV), and another 150 VMAT plans were used for CV to evaluate the generalization performance of the model. The ACLR performance was compared with the Poisson Lasso (PL) model and found significant improvement in prediction accuracy. In TV, the absolute prediction error (APE) of ACLR was 1.76%, 2.60%, and 4.66% at 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 2%/2 mm, respectively; whereas the APE of PL was 2.10%, 3.04%, and 5.29% at 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 2%/2 mm, respectively. No significant difference was found between CV and TV in prediction accuracy. ACLR model set with 3%/3 mm can achieve 100% sensitivity and 83% specificity. The ACLR model could classify the unbalanced VMAT QA results accurately, and it can be readily applied in clinical practice for virtual VMAT QA.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Commissioning and clinical implementation of an Autoencoder based Classification-Regression model for VMAT patient-specific QA in a multi-institution scenario
    Yang, Ruijie
    Yang, Xueying
    Wang, Le
    Li, Dingjie
    Guo, Yuexin
    Li, Ying
    Guan, Yumin
    Wu, Xiangyang
    Xu, Shouping
    Zhang, Shuming
    Chan, Maria F.
    Geng, Lisheng
    Sui, Jing
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2021, 161 : 230 - 240
  • [2] Correlation of phantom-based and log file patient-specific QA with complexity scores for VMAT
    Agnew, Christina E.
    Irvine, Denise M.
    McGarry, Conor K.
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2014, 15 (06): : 204 - 216
  • [3] Statistical process control analysis for patient-specific IMRT and VMAT QA
    Sanghangthum, Taweap
    Suriyapee, Sivalee
    Srisatit, Somyot
    Pawlicki, Todd
    JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH, 2013, 54 (03) : 546 - 552
  • [4] An effective and optimized patient-specific QA workload reduction for VMAT plans after MLC-modelling optimization
    Marsac, Thomas
    Camejo, Arianna Batista
    Chiavassa, Sophie
    Jan, Simon
    Lorand, Hugo
    Moignier, Alexandra
    PHYSICA MEDICA-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2023, 107
  • [5] Anatomy-based, patient-specific VMAT QA using EPID or MLC log files
    Defoor, Dewayne L.
    Vazquez-Quino, Luis A.
    Mavroidis, Panayiotis
    Papanikolaou, Nikos
    Stathakis, Sotirios
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2015, 16 (03): : 206 - 215
  • [6] Impact of plan parameters and modulation indices on patient-specific QA results for standard and stereotactic VMAT
    Chun, Minsoo
    An, Hyun Joon
    Kwon, Ohyun
    Oh, Do Hoon
    Park, Jong Min
    Kim, Jung-in
    PHYSICA MEDICA-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2019, 62 : 83 - 94
  • [7] Improvement of deep learning prediction model in patient-specific QA for VMAT with MLC leaf position map and patient's dose distribution
    Tozuka, Ryota
    Kadoya, Noriyuki
    Tomori, Seiji
    Kimura, Yuto
    Kajikawa, Tomohiro
    Sugai, Yuto
    Xiao, Yushan
    Jingu, Keiichi
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2023, 24 (10):
  • [8] A synthesized gamma distribution-based patient-specific VMAT QA using a generative adversarial network
    Matsuura, Takaaki
    Kawahara, Daisuke
    Saito, Akito
    Yamada, Kiyoshi
    Ozawa, Shuichi
    Nagata, Yasushi
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2023, 50 (04) : 2488 - 2498
  • [9] Error detection model developed using a multi-task convolutional neural network in patient-specific quality assurance for volumetric-modulated arc therapy
    Kimura, Yuto
    Kadoya, Noriyuki
    Oku, Yohei
    Kajikawa, Tomohiro
    Tomori, Seiji
    Jingu, Keiichi
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2021, 48 (09) : 4769 - 4783
  • [10] Machine Learning for Patient-Specific Quality Assurance of VMAT: Prediction and Classification Accuracy
    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