A preliminary study of a photon dose calculation algorithm using a convolutional neural network

A generalization performance study on the boosting radiotherapy dose calculation engine based on super-resolution

PURPOSE

During the radiation treatment planning process, one of the time-consuming procedures is the final high-resolution dose calculation, which obstacles the wide application of the emerging online adaptive radiotherapy techniques (OLART). There is an urgent desire for highly accurate and efficient dose calculation methods. This study aims to develop a dose super resolution-based deep learning model for fast and accurate dose prediction in clinical practice.

METHOD

A Multi-stage Dose Super-Resolution Network (MDSR Net) architecture with sparse masks module and multi-stage progressive dose distribution restoration method were developed to predict high-resolution dose distribution using low-resolution data. A total of 340 VMAT plans from different disease sites were used, among which 240 randomly selected nasopharyngeal, lung, and cervix cases were used for model training, and the remaining 60 cases from the same sites for model benchmark testing, and additional 40 cases from the unseen site (breast and rectum) was used for model generalizability evaluation. The clinical calculated dose with a grid size of 2 mm was used as baseline dose distribution. The input included the dose distribution with 4 mm grid size and CT images. The model performance was compared with HD U-Net and cubic interpolation methods using Dose-volume histograms (DVH) metrics and global gamma analysis with 1%/1 mm and 10% low dose threshold. The correlation between the prediction error and the dose, dose gradient, and CT values was also evaluated.

RESULTS

The prediction errors of MDSR were 0.06-0.84% of Dmean indices, and the gamma passing rate was 83.1-91.0% on the benchmark testing dataset, and 0.02-1.03% and 71.3-90.3% for the generalization dataset respectively. The model performance was significantly higher than the HD U-Net and interpolation methods (p < 0.05). The mean errors of the MDSR model decreased (monotonously by 0.03-0.004%) with dose and increased (by 0.01-0.73%) with the dose gradient. There was no correlation between prediction errors and the CT values.

CONCLUSION

The proposed MDSR model achieved good agreement with the baseline high-resolution dose distribution, with small prediction errors for DVH indices and high gamma passing rate for both seen and unseen sites, indicating a robust and generalizable dose prediction model. The model can provide fast and accurate high-resolution dose distribution for clinical dose calculation, particularly for the routine practice of OLART.

Generalisation of radiotherapy dose calculation for Monte Carlo algorithm combined with 3D Swin-Unet: a multi-institutional IMRT evaluation

Objective.Accurate dose calculations are essential prerequisites for precise radiotherapy. The integration of deep learning into dosimetry could consider computational accuracy and efficiency and has potential applicability to clinical dose calculation. The generalisation of a deep learning dose calculation method (hereinafter referred to as TERMA-Monte Carlo network, T-MC net) was evaluated in clinical practice using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans for various human body regions and multiple institutions, with the Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm serving as a benchmark.Approach. Sixty IMRT plans were selected from four institutions for testing the head and neck, chest and abdomen, and pelvis regions. Using the MC results as the benchmark, the T-MC net calculation results were used to perform three-dimensional dose distribution and dose-volume histogram (DVH) comparisons of the entire body, planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs), respectively, and calculate the mean ±95% confidence interval of gamma pass rate (GPR), percentage of agreement (PA) and dose difference ratio (DDR) of dose indices D95, D50, and D5.Main results. For the entire body, the GPRs of 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, 2%/1 mm, and the PA were 99.62 ± 0.32%, 98.50 ± 1.09%, 95.60 ± 2.90% and 97.80 ± 1.12%, respectively. For the PTV, the GPRs of 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, 2%/1 mm and the PA were 98.90 ± 1.00%, 95.78 ± 2.83%, 92.23 ± 4.74% and 98.93 ± 0.62%, respectively. The absolute value of average DDR was less than 1.4%.Significance. We proposed a general dose calculation framework based on deep learning, using the MC algorithm as a benchmark, performing a generalisation test for IMRT treatment plans across multiple institutions. The framework provides high computational speed while maintaining the accuracy of MC and may become an effective dose algorithm engine in treatment planning, adaptive radiotherapy, and dose verification.

Millisecond speed deep learning based proton dose calculation with Monte Carlo accuracy

Objective.Next generation online and real-time adaptive radiotherapy workflows require precise particle transport simulations in sub-second times, which is unfeasible with current analytical pencil beam algorithms (PBA) or Monte Carlo (MC) methods. We present a deep learning based millisecond speed dose calculation algorithm (DoTA) accurately predicting the dose deposited by mono-energetic proton pencil beams for arbitrary energies and patient geometries.Approach.Given the forward-scattering nature of protons, we frame 3D particle transport as modeling a sequence of 2D geometries in the beam's eye view. DoTA combines convolutional neural networks extracting spatial features (e.g. tissue and density contrasts) with a transformer self-attention backbone that routes information between the sequence of geometry slices and a vector representing the beam's energy, and is trained to predict low noise MC simulations of proton beamlets using 80 000 different head and neck, lung, and prostate geometries.Main results.Predicting beamlet doses in 5 ± 4.9 ms with a very high gamma pass rate of 99.37 ± 1.17% (1%, 3 mm) compared to the ground truth MC calculations, DoTA significantly improves upon analytical pencil beam algorithms both in precision and speed. Offering MC accuracy 100 times faster than PBAs for pencil beams, our model calculates full treatment plan doses in 10-15 s depending on the number of beamlets (800-2200 in our plans), achieving a 99.70 ± 0.14% (2%, 2 mm) gamma pass rate across 9 test patients.Significance.Outperforming all previous analytical pencil beam and deep learning based approaches, DoTA represents a new state of the art in data-driven dose calculation and can directly compete with the speed of even commercial GPU MC approaches. Providing the sub-second speed required for adaptive treatments, straightforward implementations could offer similar benefits to other steps of the radiotherapy workflow or other modalities such as helium or carbon treatments.

Convolution neural network toward Monte Carlo photon dose calculation in radiation therapy

PURPOSE

The Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm has been widely accepted as the most accurate algorithm for dosimetric calculations under various conditions in radiotherapy. However, the calculation time remains an important obstacle hindering the routine use of MC in clinical settings. In this study, full MC three-dimensional dose distributions were obtained with the inputs of the total energy release per unit mass (TERMA) distributions and the electron density (ED) distributions using a convolutional neural network (CNN). A new Dose-mixup data augmentation routine and training strategy are proposed and applied in the training process. Attempts were made to reduce the calculation time while ensuring that the calculation accuracy is comparable to that of the MC.

METHODS

Datasets were generated via the MC with random rectangular field sizes, random iso-centers, and random gantry angles for head and neck computed tomography (CT) images with Mohan 6-MV spectrum photon beams. 1500 samples were generated for the training set, and 150 samples were generated for the validation set. The T-MC Net model was obtained with the Dose-mixup data augmentation routine. The new CTs were used to test the performance of the model in the rectangular fields and the intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) fields. The mean ± 95% confidence interval of gamma pass rates were calculated.

RESULTS

For 150 rectangular field test samples, the 1%/2 mm, 2%/2 mm, and 3%/2 mm criteria gamma pass rates were 90.11% ± 0.65%, 97.65% ± 0.31%, and 99.16% ± 0.19%, respectively. For the 100 IMRT field test samples, the 1%/2 mm, 2%/2 mm, and 3%/2 mm criteria gamma pass rates were 96.48% ± 0.28%, 99.14% ± 0.10%, and 99.63% ± 0.06%, respectively. For the 7-fields IMRT plan, the 1%/2 mm, 2%/2 mm, and 3%/2 mm criteria gamma pass rates were 97.06%, 99.10%, and 99.52%, respectively. For the 9-fields IMRT plan, the 1%/2 mm, 2%/2 mm, and 3%/2 mm criteria gamma pass rates were 98.16%, 99.61%, and 99.89%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The feasibility of calculating dose distribution using a CNN with the TERMA three-dimensional distribution and ED distribution was established. The dosimetric results were comparable to those of the full MC. The accuracy and speed of the proposed approach make it a potential solution for full MC in radiotherapy. This method may be used as an acceleration engine for the dose algorithm and shows great potential for cases where fast dose calculations are needed.

The status of medical physics in radiotherapy in China

PURPOSE

To present an overview of the status of medical physics in radiotherapy in China, including facilities and devices, occupation, education, research, etc. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The information about medical physics in clinics was obtained from the 9-th nationwide survey conducted by the China Society for Radiation Oncology in 2019. The data of medical physics in education and research was collected from the publications of the official and professional organizations.

RESULTS

By 2019, there were 1463 hospitals or institutes registered to practice radiotherapy and the number of accelerators per million population was 1.5. There were 4172 medical physicists working in clinics of radiation oncology. The ratio between the numbers of radiation oncologists and medical physicists is 3.51. Approximately, 95% of medical physicists have an undergraduate or graduate degrees in nuclear physics and biomedical engineering. 86% of medical physicists have certificates issued by the Chinese Society of Medical Physics. There has been a fast growth of publications by authors from mainland of China in the top international medical physics and radiotherapy journals since 2018.

CONCLUSIONS

Demand for medical physicists in radiotherapy increased quickly in the past decade. The distribution of radiotherapy facilities in China became more balanced. High quality continuing education and training programs for medical physicists are deficient in most areas. The role of medical physicists in the clinic has not been clearly defined and their contributions have not been fully recognized by the community.

Artificial intelligence in radiation oncology

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a computer science that tries to mimic human-like intelligence in machines that use computer software and algorithms to perform specific tasks without direct human input. Machine learning (ML) is a subunit of AI that uses data-driven algorithms that learn to imitate human behavior based on a previous example or experience. Deep learning is an ML technique that uses deep neural networks to create a model. The growth and sharing of data, increasing computing power, and developments in AI have initiated a transformation in healthcare. Advances in radiation oncology have produced a significant amount of data that must be integrated with computed tomography imaging, dosimetry, and imaging performed before each fraction. Of the many algorithms used in radiation oncology, has advantages and limitations with different computational power requirements. The aim of this review is to summarize the radiotherapy (RT) process in workflow order by identifying specific areas in which quality and efficiency can be improved by ML. The RT stage is divided into seven stages: patient evaluation, simulation, contouring, planning, quality control, treatment application, and patient follow-up. A systematic evaluation of the applicability, limitations, and advantages of AI algorithms has been done for each stage.