1
|
Salahuddin S, Buzdar SA, Iqbal K, Azam MA, Aslam M, Altaf S, Ikhlaq A, Mustafa MU, Strigari L. Quality assurance for cancer patient safety: Clinical assessment for precise angles in linac during radiation therapy. TUMORI JOURNAL 2024; 110:366-374. [PMID: 39096026 DOI: 10.1177/03008916241261450] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/04/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE Quality assurance for stereotactic body radiation treatment requires that isocentric verification be ensured during gantry rotation at various angles. This study examined statistical parameters on Winston-Lutz tests to distinguish the deviation of angles from isocenter during gantry rotation using machine learning. METHOD The Varian TrueBeam linac was aligned with the marked lines on the Ruby phantom. Eight images were captured while the gantry was rotating at a 45° shift. The statistical features were derived from IsoCheck EPID software. The decision tree model was applied to these Winston-Lutz tests to cluster data into two groups: precise and error angles. RESULTS At 90° and 270° angles, the gantry exhibits isocentric stability compared to other angles. In these angles, the most statistical features were inside the range. Most variations were observed at 0° and 180° angles. In most tests, the angles 45°, 135°, 225°, and 315° showed reasonable performance and with less variation. CONCLUSION The comprehensive statistical analyses for gantry rotation of angles assists expert radiotherapists in determining the contribution of each feature that highly affects gantry movement at specific angles. Misalignment between radiation isocenter and imaging isocenter, tuning of the beam at each angle, or a slight change in the position of the Ruby phantom can further improve the inaccuracy that causes the most variations. Better precision can effectively increase patient safety and quality during cancer treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sana Salahuddin
- Institute of Physics, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Pakistan
- Department of Medical Physics, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Italy
| | | | - Khalid Iqbal
- Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Center, Lahore, Pakistan
| | - Muhammad Adeel Azam
- Department of Advanced Robotics, Italian Institute of Technology (IIT), Genova, Italy
| | - Mamona Aslam
- Institute of Physics, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Pakistan
| | - Saima Altaf
- Institute of Physics, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Pakistan
| | - Ayesha Ikhlaq
- Institute of Physics, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Pakistan
| | | | - Lidia Strigari
- Department of Medical Physics, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Shan G, Yu S, Lai Z, Xuan Z, Zhang J, Wang B, Ge Y. A Review of Artificial Intelligence Application for Radiotherapy. Dose Response 2024; 22:15593258241263687. [PMID: 38912333 PMCID: PMC11193352 DOI: 10.1177/15593258241263687] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/27/2023] [Accepted: 05/03/2024] [Indexed: 06/25/2024] Open
Abstract
Background and Purpose Artificial intelligence (AI) is a technique which tries to think like humans and mimic human behaviors. It has been considered as an alternative in a lot of human-dependent steps in radiotherapy (RT), since the human participation is a principal uncertainty source in RT. The aim of this work is to provide a systematic summary of the current literature on AI application for RT, and to clarify its role for RT practice in terms of clinical views. Materials and Methods A systematic literature search of PubMed and Google Scholar was performed to identify original articles involving the AI applications in RT from the inception to 2022. Studies were included if they reported original data and explored the clinical applications of AI in RT. Results The selected studies were categorized into three aspects of RT: organ and lesion segmentation, treatment planning and quality assurance. For each aspect, this review discussed how these AI tools could be involved in the RT protocol. Conclusions Our study revealed that AI was a potential alternative for the human-dependent steps in the complex process of RT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Guoping Shan
- School of Electronic Science and Engineering, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China
- Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou, China
| | - Shunfei Yu
- Zhejiang Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Hangzhou, China
| | - Zhongjun Lai
- Zhejiang Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Hangzhou, China
| | - Zhiqiang Xuan
- Zhejiang Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Hangzhou, China
| | - Jie Zhang
- Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou, China
| | | | - Yun Ge
- School of Electronic Science and Engineering, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Salahuddin S, Buzdar SA, Iqbal K, Azam MA, Strigari L. Efficient quality assurance for isocentric stability in stereotactic body radiation therapy using machine learning. Radiol Phys Technol 2024; 17:219-229. [PMID: 38160437 DOI: 10.1007/s12194-023-00768-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/19/2023] [Revised: 11/30/2023] [Accepted: 12/01/2023] [Indexed: 01/03/2024]
Abstract
This study aims to predict isocentric stability for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) treatments using machine learning (ML), covers the challenges of manual assessment and computational time for quality assurance (QA), and supports medical physicists to enhance accuracy. The isocentric parameters for collimator (C), gantry (G), and table (T) tests were conducted with the RUBY phantom during QA using TrueBeam linac for SBRT. This analysis combined statistical features from the IsoCheck EPID software. Five ML models, including logistic regression (LR), decision tree (DT), random forest (RF), naive Bayes (NB), and support vector machines (SVM), were used to predict the outcome of the QA procedure. 247 Winston-Lutz (WL) tests were collected from 2020 to 2022. In our study, both DT and RF achieved the highest score on test accuracy (Acc. test) ranging from 93.5% to 99.4%, and area under curve (AUC) values from 90 to 100% on three modes (C, G, and T). The precision, recall, and F1 scores indicate the DT model consistently outperforms other ML models in predicting isocenter stability deviation in QA. The QA assessment using ML models can assist error prediction early to avoid potential harm during SBRT and ensure safe and effective patient treatments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sana Salahuddin
- Institute of Physics, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Pakistan.
- Department of Medical Physics, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, 40138, Bologna, Italy.
| | - Saeed Ahmad Buzdar
- Institute of Physics, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Pakistan
| | - Khalid Iqbal
- Medical Physics Department Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital & Research Center, Lahore, Pakistan
| | - Muhammad Adeel Azam
- Department of Advanced Robotics, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genoa, Italy
- Dipartimento di Informatica, Bioingegneria, Robotica e Ingegneria dei Sistemi (DIBRIS), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy
| | - Lidia Strigari
- Department of Medical Physics, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, 40138, Bologna, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Young K, Wright EA. Automated Test for Monthly Quality Assurance of Optical Surface Imaging Dynamic Localization Accuracy. Cureus 2024; 16:e56242. [PMID: 38618470 PMCID: PMC11016349 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.56242] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/15/2024] [Indexed: 04/16/2024] Open
Abstract
The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) recently published the report of Task Group (TG) 302, which provides recommendations on acceptance, commissioning, and ongoing routine quality assurance (QA) for surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT) systems. One of the recommended monthly QA tests is a dynamic localization accuracy test. This work aimed to develop an automated procedure for monthly SGRT dynamic localization QA. An anthropomorphic head phantom was rigidly attached to the 6-dof couch of a TrueBeam linac. TrueBeam Developer Mode was used to take an MV image of the phantom at the starting position, then automatically drive the couch through a series of translations and rotations, taking an MV image after each translation. The Identify SGRT system monitored the motion of the phantom surface from the starting position. Translations assessed on MV images were compared to translations reported in trajectory log files and Identify log files. Rotations were compared between trajectory log files and Identify log files. Three experiments were conducted. None of the translations or rotations from any experiment exceeded the tolerance values for stereotactic ablative body radiation therapy (SABR) recommended by AAPM TG-142. Maximum deviations from the expected translation values from MV imaging, trajectory log files, and Identify log files were -0.94mm, -0.11mm, and -0.78mm, respectively. Maximum deviations from the expected rotation values from trajectory log files and Identify log files were 0.01 and -0.2 degrees, respectively. The proposed method is a simple automated way to complete monthly dynamic localization QA of SGRT systems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kaleigh Young
- Medical Physics, University of British Columbia - Okanagan Campus, Kelowna, CAN
| | - Eric A Wright
- Medical Physics, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, CAN
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Petragallo R, Bertram P, Halvorsen P, Iftimia I, Low DA, Morin O, Narayanasamy G, Saenz DL, Sukumar KN, Valdes G, Weinstein L, Wells MC, Ziemer BP, Lamb JM. Development and multi-institutional validation of a convolutional neural network to detect vertebral body mis-alignments in 2D x-ray setup images. Med Phys 2023; 50:2662-2671. [PMID: 36908243 DOI: 10.1002/mp.16359] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2022] [Revised: 02/11/2023] [Accepted: 02/16/2023] [Indexed: 03/14/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Misalignment to the incorrect vertebral body remains a rare but serious patient safety risk in image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT). PURPOSE Our group has proposed that an automated image-review algorithm be inserted into the IGRT process as an interlock to detect off-by-one vertebral body errors. This study presents the development and multi-institutional validation of a convolutional neural network (CNN)-based approach for such an algorithm using patient image data from a planar stereoscopic x-ray IGRT system. METHODS X-rays and digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) were collected from 429 spine radiotherapy patients (1592 treatment fractions) treated at six institutions using a stereoscopic x-ray image guidance system. Clinically-applied, physician approved, alignments were used for true-negative, "no-error" cases. "Off-by-one vertebral body" errors were simulated by translating DRRs along the spinal column using a semi-automated method. A leave-one-institution-out approach was used to estimate model accuracy on data from unseen institutions as follows: All of the images from five of the institutions were used to train a CNN model from scratch using a fixed network architecture and hyper-parameters. The size of this training set ranged from 5700 to 9372 images, depending on exactly which five institutions were contributing data. The training set was randomized and split using a 75/25 split into the final training/ validation sets. X-ray/ DRR image pairs and the associated binary labels of "no-error" or "shift" were used as the model input. Model accuracy was evaluated using images from the sixth institution, which were left out of the training phase entirely. This test set ranged from 180 to 3852 images, again depending on which institution had been left out of the training phase. The trained model was used to classify the images from the test set as either "no-error" or "shifted", and the model predictions were compared to the ground truth labels to assess the model accuracy. This process was repeated until each institution's images had been used as the testing dataset. RESULTS When the six models were used to classify unseen image pairs from the institution left out during training, the resulting receiver operating characteristic area under the curve values ranged from 0.976 to 0.998. With the specificity fixed at 99%, the corresponding sensitivities ranged from 61.9% to 99.2% (mean: 77.6%). With the specificity fixed at 95%, sensitivities ranged from 85.5% to 99.8% (mean: 92.9%). CONCLUSION This study demonstrated the CNN-based vertebral body misalignment model is robust when applied to previously unseen test data from an outside institution, indicating that this proposed additional safeguard against misalignment is feasible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel Petragallo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | | | - Per Halvorsen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beth Israel - Lahey Health, Burlington, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Ileana Iftimia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beth Israel - Lahey Health, Burlington, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Daniel A Low
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Olivier Morin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Ganesh Narayanasamy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA
| | - Daniel L Saenz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas HSC SA, San Antonio, Texas, USA
| | - Kevinraj N Sukumar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Piedmont Healthcare, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Gilmer Valdes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Lauren Weinstein
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kaiser Permanente, South San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Michelle C Wells
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Piedmont Healthcare, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Benjamin P Ziemer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - James M Lamb
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
TIGRE-VarianCBCT for on-board cone-beam computed tomography, an open-source toolkit for imaging, dosimetry and clinical research. Phys Med 2022; 102:33-45. [PMID: 36088800 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2022.08.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2022] [Revised: 07/08/2022] [Accepted: 08/17/2022] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
We presented TIGRE-VarianCBCT, an open-source toolkit Matlab-GPU for Varian on-board cone-beam CT with particular emphasis to address challenges in raw data preprocessing, artifacts correction, tomographic reconstruction and image post-processing. The aim of this project is to provide not only a tool to bridge the gap between clinical usage of CBCT scan data and research algorithms but also a framework that breaks down the imaging chain into individual processes so that research effort can be focused on a specific part. The entire imaging chain, module-based architecture, data flow and techniques used in the creation of the toolkit are presented. Raw scan data are first decoded to extract X-ray fluoro image series and set up the imaging geometry. Data conditioning operations including scatter correction, normalization, beam-hardening correction, ring removal are performed sequentially. Reconstruction is supported by TIGRE with FDK as well as a variety of iterative algorithms. Pixel-to-HU mapping is calibrated by a CatphanTM 504 phantom. Imaging dose in CTDIw is calculated in an empirical formula. The performance was validated on real patient scans with good agreement with respect to vendor-designed program. Case studies in scan protocol optimization, low dose imaging and iterative algorithm comparison demonstrated its substantial potential in performing scan data based clinical studies. The toolkit is released under the BSD license, imposing minimal restrictions on its use and distribution. The toolkit is accessible as a module at https://github.com/CERN/TIGRE.
Collapse
|
7
|
Mancosu P, Lambri N, Castiglioni I, Dei D, Iori M, Loiacono D, Russo S, Talamonti C, Villaggi E, Scorsetti M, Avanzo M. Applications of artificial intelligence in stereotactic body radiation therapy. Phys Med Biol 2022; 67. [DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ac7e18] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2022] [Accepted: 07/04/2022] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
This topical review focuses on the applications of artificial intelligence (AI) tools to stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). The high dose per fraction and the limited number of fractions in SBRT require stricter accuracy than standard radiation therapy. The intent of this review is to describe the development and evaluate the possible benefit of AI tools integration into the radiation oncology workflow for SBRT automation. The selected papers were subdivided into four sections, representative of the whole radiotherapy process: ‘AI in SBRT target and organs at risk contouring’, ‘AI in SBRT planning’, ‘AI during the SBRT delivery’, and ‘AI for outcome prediction after SBRT’. Each section summarises the challenges, as well as limits and needs for improvement to achieve better integration of AI tools in the clinical workflow.
Collapse
|
8
|
Improving the Quality of Care in Radiation Oncology using Artificial Intelligence. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2021; 34:89-98. [PMID: 34887152 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2021.11.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2021] [Revised: 10/20/2021] [Accepted: 11/12/2021] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Radiation therapy is a complex process involving multiple professionals and steps from simulation to treatment planning to delivery, and these procedures are prone to error. Additionally, the imaging and treatment delivery equipment in radiotherapy is highly complex and interconnected and represents another risk point in the quality of care. Numerous quality assurance tasks are carried out to ensure quality and to detect and prevent potential errors in the process of care. Recent developments in artificial intelligence provide potential tools to the radiation oncology community to improve the efficiency and performance of quality assurance efforts. Targets for artificial intelligence enhancement include the quality assurance of treatment plans, target and tissue structure delineation used in the plans, delivery of the plans and the radiotherapy delivery equipment itself. Here we review recent developments of artificial intelligence applications that aim to improve quality assurance processes in radiation therapy and discuss some of the challenges and limitations that require further development work to realise the potential of artificial intelligence for quality assurance.
Collapse
|
9
|
Artificial intelligence for quality assurance in radiotherapy. Cancer Radiother 2021; 25:623-626. [PMID: 34176724 DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2021.06.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/17/2021] [Revised: 05/26/2021] [Accepted: 06/02/2021] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
In radiotherapy, patient-specific quality assurance is very time-consuming and causes machine downtime. It consists of testing (using measurement with a phantom and detector) if a modulated plan is correctly delivered by a treatment unit. Artificial intelligence and in particular machine learning algorithms were mentioned in recent reports as promising solutions to reduce or eliminate the patient-specific quality assurance workload. Several teams successfully experienced a virtual patient-specific quality assurance by training a machine learning tool to predict the results. Training data are generally composed of previous treatment plans and associated patient-specific quality assurance results. However, other training data types were recently introduced such as actual positions and velocities of multileaf collimators, metrics of the plan's complexity, and gravity vectors. Different types of machine learning algorithms were investigated (Poisson regression algorithms, convolutional neural networks, support vector classifiers) with sometimes promising results. These tools are being used for treatment units' quality assurance as well, in particular to analyse the results of imaging devices. Most of these reports were feasibility studies. Using machine learning in clinical routines as a tool that could fully replace quality assurance tests conducted by physics teams has yet to be implemented.
Collapse
|
10
|
Schmidt MC, Raman CA, Wu Y, Yaqoub MM, Hao Y, Mahon RN, Riblett MJ, Knutson NC, Sajo E, Zygmanski P, Jandel M, Reynoso FJ, Sun B. Application programming interface guided QA plan generation and analysis automation. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2021; 22:26-34. [PMID: 34036736 PMCID: PMC8200500 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13288] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/12/2021] [Revised: 04/15/2021] [Accepted: 04/23/2021] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Linear accelerator quality assurance (QA) in radiation therapy is a time consuming but fundamental part of ensuring the performance characteristics of radiation delivering machines. The goal of this work is to develop an automated and standardized QA plan generation and analysis system in the Oncology Information System (OIS) to streamline the QA process. Methods Automating the QA process includes two software components: the AutoQA Builder to generate daily, monthly, quarterly, and miscellaneous periodic linear accelerator QA plans within the Treatment Planning System (TPS) and the AutoQA Analysis to analyze images collected on the Electronic Portal Imaging Device (EPID) allowing for a rapid analysis of the acquired QA images. To verify the results of the automated QA analysis, results were compared to the current standard for QA assessment for the jaw junction, light‐radiation coincidence, picket fence, and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) QA plans across three linacs and over a 6‐month period. Results The AutoQA Builder application has been utilized clinically 322 times to create QA patients, construct phantom images, and deploy common periodic QA tests across multiple institutions, linear accelerators, and physicists. Comparing the AutoQA Analysis results with our current institutional QA standard the mean difference of the ratio of intensity values within the field‐matched junction and ball‐bearing position detection was 0.012 ± 0.053 (P = 0.159) and is 0.011 ± 0.224 mm (P = 0.355), respectively. Analysis of VMAT QA plans resulted in a maximum percentage difference of 0.3%. Conclusion The automated creation and analysis of quality assurance plans using multiple APIs can be of immediate benefit to linear accelerator quality assurance efficiency and standardization. QA plan creation can be done without following tedious procedures through API assistance, and analysis can be performed inside of the clinical OIS in an automated fashion.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew C Schmidt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.,Department of Physics, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, USA
| | - Caleb A Raman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Yu Wu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Mahmoud M Yaqoub
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Yao Hao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Rebecca Nichole Mahon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Matthew J Riblett
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Nels C Knutson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Erno Sajo
- Department of Physics, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, USA
| | - Piotr Zygmanski
- Brigham and Women's/ Dana Farber Cancer Institute/ Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Marian Jandel
- Department of Physics, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, USA
| | - Francisco J Reynoso
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Baozhou Sun
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Yakar M, Etiz D. Artificial intelligence in radiation oncology. Artif Intell Med Imaging 2021; 2:13-31. [DOI: 10.35711/aimi.v2.i2.13] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2021] [Revised: 03/30/2021] [Accepted: 04/20/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Melek Yakar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Eskisehir Osmangazi University Faculty of Medicine, Eskisehir 26040, Turkey
- Center of Research and Application for Computer Aided Diagnosis and Treatment in Health, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir 26040, Turkey
| | - Durmus Etiz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Eskisehir Osmangazi University Faculty of Medicine, Eskisehir 26040, Turkey
- Center of Research and Application for Computer Aided Diagnosis and Treatment in Health, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir 26040, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Romero M, Interian Y, Solberg T, Valdes G. Targeted transfer learning to improve performance in small medical physics datasets. Med Phys 2020; 47:6246-6256. [PMID: 33007112 DOI: 10.1002/mp.14507] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/24/2020] [Revised: 07/13/2020] [Accepted: 08/04/2020] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To perform an in-depth evaluation of current state of the art techniques in training neural networks to identify appropriate approaches in small datasets. METHOD In total, 112,120 frontal-view X-ray images from the NIH ChestXray14 dataset were used in our analysis. Two tasks were studied: unbalanced multi-label classification of 14 diseases, and binary classification of pneumonia vs non-pneumonia. All datasets were randomly split into training, validation, and testing (70%, 10%, and 20%). Two popular convolution neural networks (CNNs), DensNet121 and ResNet50, were trained using PyTorch. We performed several experiments to test: (a) whether transfer learning using pretrained networks on ImageNet are of value to medical imaging/physics tasks (e.g., predicting toxicity from radiographic images after training on images from the internet), (b) whether using pretrained networks trained on problems that are similar to the target task helps transfer learning (e.g., using X-ray pretrained networks for X-ray target tasks), (c) whether freeze deep layers or change all weights provides an optimal transfer learning strategy, (d) the best strategy for the learning rate policy, and (e) what quantity of data is needed in order to appropriately deploy these various strategies (N = 50 to N = 77 880). RESULTS In the multi-label problem, DensNet121 needed at least 1600 patients to be comparable to, and 10 000 to outperform, radiomics-based logistic regression. In classifying pneumonia vs non-pneumonia, both CNN and radiomics-based methods performed poorly when N < 2000. For small datasets ( < 2000), however, a significant boost in performance (>15% increase on AUC) comes from a good selection of the transfer learning dataset, dropout, cycling learning rate, and freezing and unfreezing of deep layers as training progresses. In contrast, if sufficient data are available (>35 000), little or no tweaking is needed to obtain impressive performance. While transfer learning using X-ray images from other anatomical sites improves performance, we also observed a similar boost by using pretrained networks from ImageNet. Having source images from the same anatomical site, however, outperforms every other methodology, by up to 15%. In this case, DL models can be trained with as little as N = 50. CONCLUSIONS While training DL models in small datasets (N < 2000) is challenging, no tweaking is necessary for bigger datasets (N > 35 000). Using transfer learning with images from the same anatomical site can yield remarkable performance in new tasks with as few as N = 50. Surprisingly, we did not find any advantage for using images from other anatomical sites over networks that have been trained using ImageNet. This indicates that features learned may not be as general as currently believed, and performance decays rapidly even by just changing the anatomical site of the images.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Miguel Romero
- Master of Science in Data Science, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, 94105, USA
| | - Yannet Interian
- Master of Science in Data Science, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, 94105, USA
| | - Timothy Solberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA
| | - Gilmer Valdes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to fundamentally alter the way medicine is practised. AI platforms excel in recognizing complex patterns in medical data and provide a quantitative, rather than purely qualitative, assessment of clinical conditions. Accordingly, AI could have particularly transformative applications in radiation oncology given the multifaceted and highly technical nature of this field of medicine with a heavy reliance on digital data processing and computer software. Indeed, AI has the potential to improve the accuracy, precision, efficiency and overall quality of radiation therapy for patients with cancer. In this Perspective, we first provide a general description of AI methods, followed by a high-level overview of the radiation therapy workflow with discussion of the implications that AI is likely to have on each step of this process. Finally, we describe the challenges associated with the clinical development and implementation of AI platforms in radiation oncology and provide our perspective on how these platforms might change the roles of radiotherapy medical professionals.
Collapse
|
14
|
Luo Y, Chen S, Valdes G. Machine learning for radiation outcome modeling and prediction. Med Phys 2020; 47:e178-e184. [DOI: 10.1002/mp.13570] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/23/2019] [Revised: 03/26/2019] [Accepted: 04/09/2019] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Yi Luo
- Department of Radiation Oncology University of Michigan Ann Arbor MI 48103USA
| | - Shifeng Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology University of Maryland School of Medicine Baltimore MD 21201USA
| | - Gilmer Valdes
- Department of Radiation Oncology University of California San Francisco CA 94158USA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
AKÇAY M, ETİZ D. Radyasyon Onkolojisinde Makine Öğrenmesi. OSMANGAZİ JOURNAL OF MEDICINE 2020. [DOI: 10.20515/otd.691331] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
|
16
|
El Naqa I, Haider MA, Giger ML, Ten Haken RK. Artificial Intelligence: reshaping the practice of radiological sciences in the 21st century. Br J Radiol 2020; 93:20190855. [PMID: 31965813 PMCID: PMC7055429 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20190855] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2019] [Revised: 01/12/2020] [Accepted: 01/13/2020] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Advances in computing hardware and software platforms have led to the recent resurgence in artificial intelligence (AI) touching almost every aspect of our daily lives by its capability for automating complex tasks or providing superior predictive analytics. AI applications are currently spanning many diverse fields from economics to entertainment, to manufacturing, as well as medicine. Since modern AI's inception decades ago, practitioners in radiological sciences have been pioneering its development and implementation in medicine, particularly in areas related to diagnostic imaging and therapy. In this anniversary article, we embark on a journey to reflect on the learned lessons from past AI's chequered history. We further summarize the current status of AI in radiological sciences, highlighting, with examples, its impressive achievements and effect on re-shaping the practice of medical imaging and radiotherapy in the areas of computer-aided detection, diagnosis, prognosis, and decision support. Moving beyond the commercial hype of AI into reality, we discuss the current challenges to overcome, for AI to achieve its promised hope of providing better precision healthcare for each patient while reducing cost burden on their families and the society at large.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Issam El Naqa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Masoom A Haider
- Department of Medical Imaging and Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | | | - Randall K Ten Haken
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Luo Y, Tseng HH, Cui S, Wei L, Ten Haken RK, El Naqa I. Balancing accuracy and interpretability of machine learning approaches for radiation treatment outcomes modeling. BJR Open 2019; 1:20190021. [PMID: 33178948 PMCID: PMC7592485 DOI: 10.1259/bjro.20190021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/01/2019] [Revised: 06/18/2019] [Accepted: 06/25/2019] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Radiation outcomes prediction (ROP) plays an important role in personalized prescription and adaptive radiotherapy. A clinical decision may not only depend on an accurate radiation outcomes’ prediction, but also needs to be made based on an informed understanding of the relationship among patients’ characteristics, radiation response and treatment plans. As more patients’ biophysical information become available, machine learning (ML) techniques will have a great potential for improving ROP. Creating explainable ML methods is an ultimate task for clinical practice but remains a challenging one. Towards complete explainability, the interpretability of ML approaches needs to be first explored. Hence, this review focuses on the application of ML techniques for clinical adoption in radiation oncology by balancing accuracy with interpretability of the predictive model of interest. An ML algorithm can be generally classified into an interpretable (IP) or non-interpretable (NIP) (“black box”) technique. While the former may provide a clearer explanation to aid clinical decision-making, its prediction performance is generally outperformed by the latter. Therefore, great efforts and resources have been dedicated towards balancing the accuracy and the interpretability of ML approaches in ROP, but more still needs to be done. In this review, current progress to increase the accuracy for IP ML approaches is introduced, and major trends to improve the interpretability and alleviate the “black box” stigma of ML in radiation outcomes modeling are summarized. Efforts to integrate IP and NIP ML approaches to produce predictive models with higher accuracy and interpretability for ROP are also discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yi Luo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, 519 W William Street, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Huan-Hsin Tseng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, 519 W William Street, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Sunan Cui
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, 519 W William Street, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Lise Wei
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, 519 W William Street, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Randall K Ten Haken
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, 519 W William Street, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Issam El Naqa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, 519 W William Street, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Kalet AM, Luk SMH, Phillips MH. Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance Tasks and Tools: The Many Roles of Machine Learning. Med Phys 2019; 47:e168-e177. [DOI: 10.1002/mp.13445] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2018] [Revised: 01/14/2019] [Accepted: 02/02/2019] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Alan M. Kalet
- Department of Radiation Oncology University of Washington Medical Center Seattle WA 98195 USA
| | - Samuel M. H. Luk
- Department of Radiation Oncology University of Washington Medical Center Seattle WA 98195 USA
| | - Mark H. Phillips
- Department of Radiation Oncology University of Washington Medical Center Seattle WA 98195 USA
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Nyflot MJ, Thammasorn P, Wootton LS, Ford EC, Chaovalitwongse WA. Deep learning for patient-specific quality assurance: Identifying errors in radiotherapy delivery by radiomic analysis of gamma images with convolutional neural networks. Med Phys 2018; 46:456-464. [PMID: 30548601 DOI: 10.1002/mp.13338] [Citation(s) in RCA: 86] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2018] [Revised: 12/04/2018] [Accepted: 12/05/2018] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Patient-specific quality assurance (QA) for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a ubiquitous clinical procedure, but conventional methods have often been criticized as being insensitive to errors or less effective than other common physics checks. Recently, there has been interest in the application of radiomics, quantitative extraction of image features, to radiotherapy QA. In this work, we investigate a deep learning approach to classify the presence or absence of introduced radiotherapy treatment delivery errors from patient-specific QA. METHODS Planar dose maps from 186 IMRT beams from 23 IMRT plans were evaluated. Each plan was transferred to a cylindrical phantom CT geometry. Three sets of planar doses were exported from each plan corresponding to (a) the error-free case, (b) a random multileaf collimator (MLC) error case, and (c) a systematic MLC error case. Each plan was delivered to the electronic portal imaging device (EPID), and planned and measured doses were used to calculate gamma images in an EPID dosimetry software package (for a total of 558 gamma images). Two radiomic approaches were used. In the first, a convolutional neural network with triplet learning was used to extract image features from the gamma images. In the second, a handcrafted approach using texture features was used. The resulting metrics from both approaches were input into four machine learning classifiers (support vector machines, multilayer perceptrons, decision trees, and k-nearest-neighbors) in order to determine whether images contained the introduced errors. Two experiments were considered: the two-class experiment classified images as error-free or containing any MLC error, and the three-class experiment classified images as error-free, containing a random MLC error, or containing a systematic MLC error. Additionally, threshold-based passing criteria were calculated for comparison. RESULTS In total, 303 gamma images were used for model training and 255 images were used for model testing. The highest classification accuracy was achieved with the deep learning approach, with a maximum accuracy of 77.3% in the two-class experiment and 64.3% in the three-class experiment. The performance of the handcrafted approach with texture features was lower, with a maximum accuracy of 66.3% in the two-class experiment and 53.7% in the three-class experiment. Variability between the results of the four machine learning classifiers was lower for the deep learning approach vs the texture feature approach. Both radiomic approaches were superior to threshold-based passing criteria. CONCLUSIONS Deep learning with convolutional neural networks can be used to classify the presence or absence of introduced radiotherapy treatment delivery errors from patient-specific gamma images. The performance of the deep learning network was superior to a handcrafted approach with texture features, and both radiomic approaches were better than threshold-based passing criteria. The results suggest that radiomic QA is a promising direction for clinical radiotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew J Nyflot
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.,Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Phawis Thammasorn
- Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
| | - Landon S Wootton
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Eric C Ford
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - W Art Chaovalitwongse
- Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.,Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Thompson RF, Valdes G, Fuller CD, Carpenter CM, Morin O, Aneja S, Lindsay WD, Aerts HJWL, Agrimson B, Deville C, Rosenthal SA, Yu JB, Thomas CR. Artificial Intelligence in Radiation Oncology Imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 102:1159-1161. [PMID: 30353870 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.05.070] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/17/2018] [Revised: 05/17/2018] [Accepted: 05/26/2018] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Reid F Thompson
- Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon; VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon.
| | - Gilmer Valdes
- University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | | | | | - Olivier Morin
- University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | | | | | - Hugo J W L Aerts
- Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | | | | | - Seth A Rosenthal
- Sutter Medical Group and Suttter Cancer Center, Sacramento, California
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
21
|
Shen C, Li B, Lou Y, Yang M, Zhou L, Jia X. Multienergy element-resolved cone beam CT (MEER-CBCT) realized on a conventional CBCT platform. Med Phys 2018; 45:4461-4470. [PMID: 30179261 DOI: 10.1002/mp.13169] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/19/2017] [Revised: 07/29/2018] [Accepted: 08/20/2018] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Cone beam CT (CBCT) has been widely used in radiation therapy. However, its main application is still to acquire anatomical information for patient positioning. This study proposes a multienergy element-resolved (MEER) CBCT framework that employs energy-resolved data acquisition on a conventional CBCT platform and then simultaneously reconstructs images of x-ray attenuation coefficients, electron density relative to water (rED), and elemental composition (EC) to support advanced applications. METHODS The MEER-CBCT framework is realized on a Varian TrueBeam CBCT platform using a kVp-switching scanning scheme. A simultaneous image reconstruction and elemental decomposition model is formulated as an optimization problem. The objective function uses a least square term to enforce fidelity between x-ray attenuation coefficients and projection measurements. Spatial regularization is introduced via sparsity under a tight wavelet-frame transform. Consistency is imposed among rED, EC, and attenuation coefficients and inherently serves as a regularization term along the energy direction. The EC is further constrained by a sparse combination of ECs in a dictionary containing tissues commonly existing in humans. The optimization problem is solved by a novel alternating-direction minimization scheme. The MEER-CBCT framework was tested in a simulation study using an NCAT phantom and an experimental study using a Gammex phantom. RESULTS MEER-CBCT framework was successfully realized on a clinical Varian TrueBeam onboard CBCT platform with three energy channels of 80, 100, and 120 kVp. In the simulation study, the attenuation coefficient image achieved a structural similarity index of 0.98, compared to 0.61 for the image reconstructed by the conventional conjugate gradient least square (CGLS) algorithm, primarily because of reduction in artifacts. In the experimental study, the attenuation image obtained a contrast-to-noise ratio ≥60, much higher than that of CGLS results (~16) because of noise reduction. The median errors in rED and EC were 0.5% and 1.4% in the simulation study and 1.4% and 2.3% in the experimental study. CONCLUSION We proposed a novel MEER-CBCT framework realized on a clinical CBCT platform. Simulation and experimental studies demonstrated its capability to simultaneously reconstruct x-ray attenuation coefficient, rED, and EC images accurately.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chenyang Shen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA
| | - Bin Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA.,State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510060, China
| | - Yifei Lou
- Department of Mathematical Science, University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, TX, 75080, USA
| | - Ming Yang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA
| | - Linghong Zhou
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510515, China
| | - Xun Jia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
El Naqa I, Ruan D, Valdes G, Dekker A, McNutt T, Ge Y, Wu QJ, Oh JH, Thor M, Smith W, Rao A, Fuller C, Xiao Y, Manion F, Schipper M, Mayo C, Moran JM, Ten Haken R. Machine learning and modeling: Data, validation, communication challenges. Med Phys 2018; 45:e834-e840. [PMID: 30144098 DOI: 10.1002/mp.12811] [Citation(s) in RCA: 49] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/13/2017] [Revised: 12/28/2017] [Accepted: 01/22/2018] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
With the era of big data, the utilization of machine learning algorithms in radiation oncology is rapidly growing with applications including: treatment response modeling, treatment planning, contouring, organ segmentation, image-guidance, motion tracking, quality assurance, and more. Despite this interest, practical clinical implementation of machine learning as part of the day-to-day clinical operations is still lagging. The aim of this white paper is to further promote progress in this new field of machine learning in radiation oncology by highlighting its untapped advantages and potentials for clinical advancement, while also presenting current challenges and open questions for future research. The targeted audience of this paper includes newcomers as well as practitioners in the field of medical physics/radiation oncology. The paper also provides general recommendations to avoid common pitfalls when applying these powerful data analytic tools to medical physics and radiation oncology problems and suggests some guidelines for transparent and informative reporting of machine learning results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Issam El Naqa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Dan Ruan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Gilmer Valdes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Andre Dekker
- GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Todd McNutt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, John Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Yaorong Ge
- Department of Software and Information Systems, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Q Jackie Wu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Jung Hun Oh
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Maria Thor
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Wade Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Arvind Rao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson, Houston, TX, USA.,Department of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, MD Anderson, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Clifton Fuller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ying Xiao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Frank Manion
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Matthew Schipper
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Charles Mayo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Jean M Moran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Randall Ten Haken
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Chao HH, Valdes G, Luna JM, Heskel M, Berman AT, Solberg TD, Simone CB. Exploratory analysis using machine learning to predict for chest wall pain in patients with stage I non-small-cell lung cancer treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2018; 19:539-546. [PMID: 29992732 PMCID: PMC6123157 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12415] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2017] [Revised: 05/24/2018] [Accepted: 06/13/2018] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Background and purpose Chest wall toxicity is observed after stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for peripherally located lung tumors. We utilize machine learning algorithms to identify toxicity predictors to develop dose–volume constraints. Materials and methods Twenty‐five patient, tumor, and dosimetric features were recorded for 197 consecutive patients with Stage I NSCLC treated with SBRT, 11 of whom (5.6%) developed CTCAEv4 grade ≥2 chest wall pain. Decision tree modeling was used to determine chest wall syndrome (CWS) thresholds for individual features. Significant features were determined using independent multivariate methods. These methods incorporate out‐of‐bag estimation using Random forests (RF) and bootstrapping (100 iterations) using decision trees. Results Univariate analysis identified rib dose to 1 cc < 4000 cGy (P = 0.01), chest wall dose to 30 cc < 1900 cGy (P = 0.035), rib Dmax < 5100 cGy (P = 0.05) and lung dose to 1000 cc < 70 cGy (P = 0.039) to be statistically significant thresholds for avoiding CWS. Subsequent multivariate analysis confirmed the importance of rib dose to 1 cc, chest wall dose to 30 cc, and rib Dmax. Using learning‐curve experiments, the dataset proved to be self‐consistent and provides a realistic model for CWS analysis. Conclusions Using machine learning algorithms in this first of its kind study, we identify robust features and cutoffs predictive for the rare clinical event of CWS. Additional data in planned subsequent multicenter studies will help increase the accuracy of multivariate analysis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hann-Hsiang Chao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Gilmer Valdes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California - San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Jose M Luna
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Marina Heskel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Abigail T Berman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Timothy D Solberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California - San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Charles B Simone
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Cai B, Dolly S, Kamal G, Yaddanapudi S, Sun B, Goddu SM, Mutic S, Li H. Technical Note: A feasibility study of using the flat panel detector on linac for the
kV
x‐ray generator test. Med Phys 2018; 45:3305-3314. [DOI: 10.1002/mp.12941] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/17/2017] [Revised: 02/13/2018] [Accepted: 03/16/2018] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Bin Cai
- Department of Radiation Oncology Washington University St. Louis MO 63110 USA
| | - Steven Dolly
- Department of Radiation Oncology Washington University St. Louis MO 63110 USA
| | - Gregory Kamal
- Department of Radiation Oncology Washington University St. Louis MO 63110 USA
| | - Sridhar Yaddanapudi
- Department of Radiation Oncology Washington University St. Louis MO 63110 USA
| | - Baozhou Sun
- Department of Radiation Oncology Washington University St. Louis MO 63110 USA
| | - S. Murty Goddu
- Department of Radiation Oncology Washington University St. Louis MO 63110 USA
| | - Sasa Mutic
- Department of Radiation Oncology Washington University St. Louis MO 63110 USA
| | - Hua Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology Washington University St. Louis MO 63110 USA
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Valdes G, Chang AJ, Interian Y, Owen K, Jensen ST, Ungar LH, Cunha A, Solberg TD, Hsu IC. Salvage HDR Brachytherapy: Multiple Hypothesis Testing Versus Machine Learning Analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 101:694-703. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.03.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2017] [Revised: 01/07/2018] [Accepted: 03/06/2018] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
26
|
Thompson RF, Valdes G, Fuller CD, Carpenter CM, Morin O, Aneja S, Lindsay WD, Aerts HJWL, Agrimson B, Deville C, Rosenthal SA, Yu JB, Thomas CR. Artificial intelligence in radiation oncology: A specialty-wide disruptive transformation? Radiother Oncol 2018; 129:421-426. [PMID: 29907338 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.05.030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 131] [Impact Index Per Article: 21.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/07/2018] [Revised: 05/29/2018] [Accepted: 05/30/2018] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is emerging as a technology with the power to transform established industries, and with applications from automated manufacturing to advertising and facial recognition to fully autonomous transportation. Advances in each of these domains have led some to call AI the "fourth" industrial revolution [1]. In healthcare, AI is emerging as both a productive and disruptive force across many disciplines. This is perhaps most evident in Diagnostic Radiology and Pathology, specialties largely built around the processing and complex interpretation of medical images, where the role of AI is increasingly seen as both a boon and a threat. In Radiation Oncology as well, AI seems poised to reshape the specialty in significant ways, though the impact of AI has been relatively limited at present, and may rightly seem more distant to many, given the predominantly interpersonal and complex interventional nature of the specialty. In this overview, we will explore the current state and anticipated future impact of AI on Radiation Oncology, in detail, focusing on key topics from multiple stakeholder perspectives, as well as the role our specialty may play in helping to shape the future of AI within the larger spectrum of medicine.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Reid F Thompson
- Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, USA; VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, USA.
| | - Gilmer Valdes
- University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA
| | | | | | - Olivier Morin
- University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA
| | | | | | - Hugo J W L Aerts
- Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, USA; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
27
|
Wootton LS, Nyflot MJ, Chaovalitwongse WA, Ford E. Error Detection in Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance Using Radiomic Analysis of Gamma Distributions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 102:219-228. [PMID: 30102197 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.05.033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/28/2017] [Revised: 04/10/2018] [Accepted: 05/13/2018] [Indexed: 10/16/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To improve the detection of errors in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with a novel method that uses quantitative image features from radiomics to analyze gamma distributions generated during patient specific quality assurance (QA). METHODS AND MATERIALS One hundred eighty-six IMRT beams from 23 patient treatments were delivered to a phantom and measured with electronic portal imaging device dosimetry. The treatments spanned a range of anatomic sites; half were head and neck treatments, and the other half were drawn from treatments for lung and rectal cancers, sarcoma, and glioblastoma. Planar gamma distributions, or gamma images, were calculated for each beam using the measured dose and calculated doses from the 3-dimensional treatment planning system under various scenarios: a plan without errors and plans with either simulated random or systematic multileaf collimator mispositioning errors. The gamma images were randomly divided into 2 sets: a training set for model development and testing set for validation. Radiomic features were calculated for each gamma image. Error detection models were developed by training logistic regression models on these radiomic features. The models were applied to the testing set to quantify their predictive utility, determined by calculating the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operator characteristic curve, and were compared with traditional threshold-based gamma analysis. RESULTS The AUC of the random multileaf collimator mispositioning model on the testing set was 0.761 compared with 0.512 for threshold-based gamma analysis. The AUC for the systematic mispositioning model was 0.717 versus 0.660 for threshold-based gamma analysis. Furthermore, the models could discriminate between the 2 types of errors simulated here, exhibiting AUCs of approximately 0.5 (equivalent to random guessing) when applied to the error they were not designed to detect. CONCLUSIONS The feasibility of error detection in patient-specific IMRT QA using radiomic analysis of QA images has been demonstrated. This methodology represents a substantial step forward for IMRT QA with improved sensitivity and specificity over current QA methods and the potential to distinguish between different types of errors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Landon S Wootton
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington.
| | - Matthew J Nyflot
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington; Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington
| | - W Art Chaovalitwongse
- Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington; Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas
| | - Eric Ford
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Interian Y, Rideout V, Kearney VP, Gennatas E, Morin O, Cheung J, Solberg T, Valdes G. Deep nets vs expert designed features in medical physics: An IMRT QA case study. Med Phys 2018; 45:2672-2680. [PMID: 29603278 DOI: 10.1002/mp.12890] [Citation(s) in RCA: 87] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/06/2017] [Revised: 01/09/2018] [Accepted: 01/09/2018] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of Deep Neural Networks against a technique designed by domain experts in the prediction of gamma passing rates for Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance (IMRT QA). METHOD A total of 498 IMRT plans across all treatment sites were planned in Eclipse version 11 and delivered using a dynamic sliding window technique on Clinac iX or TrueBeam Linacs. Measurements were performed using a commercial 2D diode array, and passing rates for 3%/3 mm local dose/distance-to-agreement (DTA) were recorded. Separately, fluence maps calculated for each plan were used as inputs to a convolution neural network (CNN). The CNNs were trained to predict IMRT QA gamma passing rates using TensorFlow and Keras. A set of model architectures, inspired by the convolutional blocks of the VGG-16 ImageNet model, were constructed and implemented. Synthetic data, created by rotating and translating the fluence maps during training, was created to boost the performance of the CNNs. Dropout, batch normalization, and data augmentation were utilized to help train the model. The performance of the CNNs was compared to a generalized Poisson regression model, previously developed for this application, which used 78 expert designed features. RESULTS Deep Neural Networks without domain knowledge achieved comparable performance to a baseline system designed by domain experts in the prediction of 3%/3 mm Local gamma passing rates. An ensemble of neural nets resulted in a mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.70 ± 0.05 and the domain expert model resulted in a 0.74 ± 0.06. CONCLUSIONS Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) with transfer learning can predict IMRT QA passing rates by automatically designing features from the fluence maps without human expert supervision. Predictions from CNNs are comparable to a system carefully designed by physicist experts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yannet Interian
- MS in Analytics Program, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Vincent Rideout
- MS in Analytics Program, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Vasant P Kearney
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Efstathios Gennatas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Olivier Morin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Joey Cheung
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Timothy Solberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Gilmer Valdes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Feng M, Valdes G, Dixit N, Solberg TD. Machine Learning in Radiation Oncology: Opportunities, Requirements, and Needs. Front Oncol 2018; 8:110. [PMID: 29719815 PMCID: PMC5913324 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2018.00110] [Citation(s) in RCA: 64] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2018] [Accepted: 03/29/2018] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) has the potential to revolutionize the field of radiation oncology, but there is much work to be done. In this article, we approach the radiotherapy process from a workflow perspective, identifying specific areas where a data-centric approach using ML could improve the quality and efficiency of patient care. We highlight areas where ML has already been used, and identify areas where we should invest additional resources. We believe that this article can serve as a guide for both clinicians and researchers to start discussing issues that must be addressed in a timely manner.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mary Feng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States
| | - Gilmer Valdes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States
| | - Nayha Dixit
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States
| | - Timothy D Solberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Manser P, Frauchiger D, Frei D, Volken W, Terribilini D, Fix MK. Dose calculation of dynamic trajectory radiotherapy using Monte Carlo. Z Med Phys 2018; 29:31-38. [PMID: 29631759 DOI: 10.1016/j.zemedi.2018.03.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/27/2017] [Revised: 03/19/2018] [Accepted: 03/19/2018] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery technique gantry position, multi-leaf collimator (MLC) as well as dose rate change dynamically during the application. However, additional components can be dynamically altered throughout the dose delivery such as the collimator or the couch. Thus, the degrees of freedom increase allowing almost arbitrary dynamic trajectories for the beam. While the dose delivery of such dynamic trajectories for linear accelerators is technically possible, there is currently no dose calculation and validation tool available. Thus, the aim of this work is to develop a dose calculation and verification tool for dynamic trajectories using Monte Carlo (MC) methods. METHODS The dose calculation for dynamic trajectories is implemented in the previously developed Swiss Monte Carlo Plan (SMCP). SMCP interfaces the treatment planning system Eclipse with a MC dose calculation algorithm and is already able to handle dynamic MLC and gantry rotations. Hence, the additional dynamic components, namely the collimator and the couch, are described similarly to the dynamic MLC by defining data pairs of positions of the dynamic component and the corresponding MU-fractions. For validation purposes, measurements are performed with the Delta4 phantom and film measurements using the developer mode on a TrueBeam linear accelerator. These measured dose distributions are then compared with the corresponding calculations using SMCP. First, simple academic cases applying one-dimensional movements are investigated and second, more complex dynamic trajectories with several simultaneously moving components are compared considering academic cases as well as a clinically motivated prostate case. RESULTS The dose calculation for dynamic trajectories is successfully implemented into SMCP. The comparisons between the measured and calculated dose distributions for the simple as well as for the more complex situations show an agreement which is generally within 3% of the maximum dose or 3mm. The required computation time for the dose calculation remains the same when the additional dynamic moving components are included. CONCLUSION The results obtained for the dose comparisons for simple and complex situations suggest that the extended SMCP is an accurate dose calculation and efficient verification tool for dynamic trajectory radiotherapy. This work was supported by Varian Medical Systems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter Manser
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Switzerland.
| | - Daniel Frauchiger
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Daniel Frei
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Werner Volken
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Dario Terribilini
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Michael K Fix
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Valdes G, Simone CB, Chen J, Lin A, Yom SS, Pattison AJ, Carpenter CM, Solberg TD. Clinical decision support of radiotherapy treatment planning: A data-driven machine learning strategy for patient-specific dosimetric decision making. Radiother Oncol 2017; 125:392-397. [PMID: 29162279 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.10.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2017] [Revised: 10/10/2017] [Accepted: 10/10/2017] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Clinical decision support systems are a growing class of tools with the potential to impact healthcare. This study investigates the construction of a decision support system through which clinicians can efficiently identify which previously approved historical treatment plans are achievable for a new patient to aid in selection of therapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS Treatment data were collected for early-stage lung and postoperative oropharyngeal cancers treated using photon (lung and head and neck) and proton (head and neck) radiotherapy. Machine-learning classifiers were constructed using patient-specific feature-sets and a library of historical plans. Model accuracy was analyzed using learning curves, and historical treatment plan matching was investigated. RESULTS Learning curves demonstrate that for these datasets, approximately 45, 60, and 30 patients are needed for a sufficiently accurate classification model for radiotherapy for early-stage lung, postoperative oropharyngeal photon, and postoperative oropharyngeal proton, respectively. The resulting classification model provides a database of previously approved treatment plans that are achievable for a new patient. An exemplary case, highlighting tradeoffs between the heart and chest wall dose while holding target dose constant in two historical plans is provided. CONCLUSIONS We report on the first artificial-intelligence based clinical decision support system that connects patients to past discrete treatment plans in radiation oncology and demonstrate for the first time how this tool can enable clinicians to use past decisions to help inform current assessments. Clinicians can be informed of dose tradeoffs between critical structures early in the treatment process, enabling more time spent on finding the optimal course of treatment for individual patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gilmer Valdes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, United States.
| | | | - Josephine Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, United States
| | - Alexander Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
| | - Sue S Yom
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, United States; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, San Francisco, United States
| | | | | | - Timothy D Solberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, United States
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Valdes G, Chan MF, Lim SB, Scheuermann R, Deasy JO, Solberg TD. IMRT QA using machine learning: A multi-institutional validation. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2017; 18:279-284. [PMID: 28815994 PMCID: PMC5874948 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12161] [Citation(s) in RCA: 93] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/22/2017] [Revised: 06/30/2017] [Accepted: 07/10/2017] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose To validate a machine learning approach to Virtual intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) for accurately predicting gamma passing rates using different measurement approaches at different institutions. Methods A Virtual IMRT QA framework was previously developed using a machine learning algorithm based on 498 IMRT plans, in which QA measurements were performed using diode‐array detectors and a 3%local/3 mm with 10% threshold at Institution 1. An independent set of 139 IMRT measurements from a different institution, Institution 2, with QA data based on portal dosimetry using the same gamma index, was used to test the mathematical framework. Only pixels with ≥10% of the maximum calibrated units (CU) or dose were included in the comparison. Plans were characterized by 90 different complexity metrics. A weighted poison regression with Lasso regularization was trained to predict passing rates using the complexity metrics as input. Results The methodology predicted passing rates within 3% accuracy for all composite plans measured using diode‐array detectors at Institution 1, and within 3.5% for 120 of 139 plans using portal dosimetry measurements performed on a per‐beam basis at Institution 2. The remaining measurements (19) had large areas of low CU, where portal dosimetry has a larger disagreement with the calculated dose and as such, the failure was expected. These beams need further modeling in the treatment planning system to correct the under‐response in low‐dose regions. Important features selected by Lasso to predict gamma passing rates were as follows: complete irradiated area outline (CIAO), jaw position, fraction of MLC leafs with gaps smaller than 20 or 5 mm, fraction of area receiving less than 50% of the total CU, fraction of the area receiving dose from penumbra, weighted average irregularity factor, and duty cycle. Conclusions We have demonstrated that Virtual IMRT QA can predict passing rates using different measurement techniques and across multiple institutions. Prediction of QA passing rates can have profound implications on the current IMRT process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gilmer Valdes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Maria F Chan
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Seng Boh Lim
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Ryan Scheuermann
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Joseph O Deasy
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Timothy D Solberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Sung W, Park JI, Kim JI, Carlson J, Ye SJ, Park JM. Monte Carlo simulation for scanning technique with scattering foil free electron beam: A proof of concept study. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0177380. [PMID: 28493940 PMCID: PMC5426680 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177380] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2016] [Accepted: 04/26/2017] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
This study investigated the potential of a newly proposed scattering foil free (SFF) electron beam scanning technique for the treatment of skin cancer on the irregular patient surfaces using Monte Carlo (MC) simulation. After benchmarking of the MC simulations, we removed the scattering foil to generate SFF electron beams. Cylindrical and spherical phantoms with 1 cm boluses were generated and the target volume was defined from the surface to 5 mm depth. The SFF scanning technique with 6 MeV electrons was simulated using those phantoms. For comparison, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were also generated with two full arcs and 6 MV photon beams. When the scanning resolution resulted in a larger separation between beams than the field size, the plan qualities were worsened. In the cylindrical phantom with a radius of 10 cm, the conformity indices, homogeneity indices and body mean doses of the SFF plans (scanning resolution = 1°) vs. VMAT plans were 1.04 vs. 1.54, 1.10 vs. 1.12 and 5 Gy vs. 14 Gy, respectively. Those of the spherical phantom were 1.04 vs. 1.83, 1.08 vs. 1.09 and 7 Gy vs. 26 Gy, respectively. The proposed SFF plans showed superior dose distributions compared to the VMAT plans.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wonmo Sung
- Program in Biomedical Radiation Sciences, Department of Transdisciplinary Studies, Seoul National University Graduate School of Convergence Science and Technology, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Jong In Park
- Program in Biomedical Radiation Sciences, Department of Transdisciplinary Studies, Seoul National University Graduate School of Convergence Science and Technology, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Jung-in Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea
- Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea
- Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Joel Carlson
- Program in Biomedical Radiation Sciences, Department of Transdisciplinary Studies, Seoul National University Graduate School of Convergence Science and Technology, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Sung-Joon Ye
- Program in Biomedical Radiation Sciences, Department of Transdisciplinary Studies, Seoul National University Graduate School of Convergence Science and Technology, Seoul, Republic of Korea
- Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Jong Min Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea
- Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea
- Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea
- Institute for Smart System, Robotics Research Laboratory for Extreme Environments, Advanced Institutes of Convergence Technology, Suwon, Republic of Korea
- * E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|