Literature DB >> 26948678

A machine learning approach to the accurate prediction of multi-leaf collimator positional errors.

Joel N K Carlson1, Jong Min Park, So-Yeon Park, Jong In Park, Yunseok Choi, Sung-Joon Ye.   

Abstract

Discrepancies between planned and delivered movements of multi-leaf collimators (MLCs) are an important source of errors in dose distributions during radiotherapy. In this work we used machine learning techniques to train models to predict these discrepancies, assessed the accuracy of the model predictions, and examined the impact these errors have on quality assurance (QA) procedures and dosimetry. Predictive leaf motion parameters for the models were calculated from the plan files, such as leaf position and velocity, whether the leaf was moving towards or away from the isocenter of the MLC, and many others. Differences in positions between synchronized DICOM-RT planning files and DynaLog files reported during QA delivery were used as a target response for training of the models. The final model is capable of predicting MLC positions during delivery to a high degree of accuracy. For moving MLC leaves, predicted positions were shown to be significantly closer to delivered positions than were planned positions. By incorporating predicted positions into dose calculations in the TPS, increases were shown in gamma passing rates against measured dose distributions recorded during QA delivery. For instance, head and neck plans with 1%/2 mm gamma criteria had an average increase in passing rate of 4.17% (SD = 1.54%). This indicates that the inclusion of predictions during dose calculation leads to a more realistic representation of plan delivery. To assess impact on the patient, dose volumetric histograms (DVH) using delivered positions were calculated for comparison with planned and predicted DVHs. In all cases, predicted dose volumetric parameters were in closer agreement to the delivered parameters than were the planned parameters, particularly for organs at risk on the periphery of the treatment area. By incorporating the predicted positions into the TPS, the treatment planner is given a more realistic view of the dose distribution as it will truly be delivered to the patient.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26948678     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/61/6/2514

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  16 in total

Review 1.  Artificial Intelligence in radiotherapy: state of the art and future directions.

Authors:  Giulio Francolini; Isacco Desideri; Giulia Stocchi; Viola Salvestrini; Lucia Pia Ciccone; Pietro Garlatti; Mauro Loi; Lorenzo Livi
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2020-04-22       Impact factor: 3.064

Review 2.  Artificial intelligence in radiation oncology.

Authors:  Elizabeth Huynh; Ahmed Hosny; Christian Guthier; Danielle S Bitterman; Steven F Petit; Daphne A Haas-Kogan; Benjamin Kann; Hugo J W L Aerts; Raymond H Mak
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-08-25       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 3.  Internet-based computer technology on radiotherapy.

Authors:  James C L Chow
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2017-09-08

Review 4.  Artificial Intelligence: reshaping the practice of radiological sciences in the 21st century.

Authors:  Issam El Naqa; Masoom A Haider; Maryellen L Giger; Randall K Ten Haken
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-02-01       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Auto-Trending daily quality assurance program for a pencil beam scanning proton system aligned with TG 224.

Authors:  Chengyu Shi; Qing Chen; Francis Yu; Jingqiao Zhang; Minglei Kang; Shikui Tang; Chang Chang; Haibo Lin
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-12-18       Impact factor: 2.102

6.  Deep Learning for Patient-Specific Quality Assurance: Predicting Gamma Passing Rates for IMRT Based on Delivery Fluence Informed by log Files.

Authors:  Ying Huang; Yifei Pi; Kui Ma; Xiaojuan Miao; Sichao Fu; Zhen Zhu; Yifan Cheng; Zhepei Zhang; Hua Chen; Hao Wang; Hengle Gu; Yan Shao; Yanhua Duan; Aihui Feng; Weihai Zhuo; Zhiyong Xu
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2022 Jan-Dec

7.  Machine learning and modeling: Data, validation, communication challenges.

Authors:  Issam El Naqa; Dan Ruan; Gilmer Valdes; Andre Dekker; Todd McNutt; Yaorong Ge; Q Jackie Wu; Jung Hun Oh; Maria Thor; Wade Smith; Arvind Rao; Clifton Fuller; Ying Xiao; Frank Manion; Matthew Schipper; Charles Mayo; Jean M Moran; Randall Ten Haken
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2018-08-24       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  A management method for the statistical results of patient-specific quality assurance for intensity-modulated radiation therapy.

Authors:  Satoshi Nakamura; Hiroyuki Okamoto; Akihisa Wakita; Rei Umezawa; Kana Takahashi; Koji Inaba; Naoya Murakami; Toru Kato; Hiroshi Igaki; Yoshinori Ito; Yoshihisa Abe; Jun Itami
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 2.724

9.  IMRT QA using machine learning: A multi-institutional validation.

Authors:  Gilmer Valdes; Maria F Chan; Seng Boh Lim; Ryan Scheuermann; Joseph O Deasy; Timothy D Solberg
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2017-08-17       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  Machine Learning in Radiation Oncology: Opportunities, Requirements, and Needs.

Authors:  Mary Feng; Gilmer Valdes; Nayha Dixit; Timothy D Solberg
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2018-04-17       Impact factor: 6.244

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.