Patient-specific quality assurance prediction models based on machine learning for novel dual-layered MLC linac

被引:7
|
作者
Zhu, Heling [1 ]
Zhu, Qizhen [1 ]
Wang, Zhiqun [1 ]
Yang, Bo [1 ]
Zhang, Wenjun [1 ]
Qiu, Jie [1 ]
机构
[1] Chinese Acad Med Sci & Peking Union Med Coll, Peking Union Med Coll Hosp, Dept Radiat Oncol, Beijing 100730, Peoples R China
关键词
dual-layered MLC; machine learning; portal dosimetry; quality assurance; TREATMENT PLAN COMPLEXITY; IMRT; METRICS; QA; COLLIMATOR; MODULATION; SYSTEM;
D O I
10.1002/mp.16091
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
BackgroundPatient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) is an indispensable and essential procedure in radiotherapy workflow, and several studies have been done to develop prediction models based on the conventional C-arm linac of single-layered multileaf collimator (MLC) with machine learning (ML) and deep learning techniques to predict PSQA results and improve efficiency. Recently, a newly designed O-ring gantry linac "Halcyon" equipped with unique jawless stacked-and-staggered dual-layered MLC was released. However, few studies have focused on developing PSQA prediction models for this novel dual-layered MLC system. PurposeTo evaluate the performance of ML to predict PSQA results of fixed field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (FF-IMRT) plans for linac equipped with dual-layered MLC. Methods and materialsA total of 213 FF-IMRT treatment plans, including 1383 beams from various treatment sites, were selected and delivered with portal dosimetry verification on Halcyon linac. Gamma analysis was performed using 1%/1, 2%/2, and 3%/2 mm criteria with a 10% threshold. The training set (TS) of ML models consisted of 1106 beams, and an independent evaluation set (ES) consisted of 277 beams. For each beam, 33 complexity metrics were extracted as input data for training models. Three ML algorithms (gradient boosting decision tree/GBDT, random forest/RF, and Poisson Lasso/PL) were utilized to build the models and predict gamma passing rates (GPRs). To improve the prediction accuracy in the rare region, a method of reweighting for TS has been performed and compared to the unweighted results. The importance of complexity metrics was studied by permuted interesting features. ResultsThe GBDT model had the best performance in this study. In ES, the minimal mean prediction error for unweighted results was 1.93%, 1.16%, 0.78% under 1%/1, 2%/2, and 3%/2 mm criteria, respectively, from GBDT model. Comparing to the unweighted results, the models after reweighting gained up to 30% improvement in the rare region, whereas the overall prediction error was slightly worse depending on the kind of models. For feature importance, 2 tree-based models (GBDT and RF) had in common the top 10 most important metrics as well as the same metric with the largest impact. ConclusionFor linac equipped with novel dual-layered MLC, the ML model based on GBDT algorithm shows a certain degree of accuracy for GPRs prediction. The specific ML model for dual-layered MLC configuration could be a useful tool for physicists detecting PSQA measurement failures.
引用
收藏
页码:1205 / 1214
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [11] A Deep Learning-Based Prediction Model for Gamma Evaluation in Patient-Specific Quality Assurance
    Tomori, S.
    Kadoya, N.
    Takayama, Y.
    Kajikawa, T.
    Shima, K.
    Narazaki, K.
    Jingu, K.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2018, 45 (06) : E469 - E470
  • [12] A deep learning-based prediction model for gamma evaluation in patient-specific quality assurance
    Tomori, Seiji
    Kadoya, Noriyuki
    Takayama, Yoshiki
    Kajikawa, Tomohiro
    Shima, Katsumi
    Narazaki, Kakutarou
    Jingu, Keiichi
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2018, 45 (09) : 4055 - 4065
  • [13] Quality assurance of micro-MLC based IMRT plans using patient-specific phantom
    Sunel, S.
    Yeginer, M.
    Akyol, F.
    Biltekin, F.
    Ozyigit, G.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2019, 133 : S918 - S918
  • [14] Evaluation of prediction and classification performances in different machine learning models for patient-specific quality assurance of head-and-neck VMAT plans
    Kusunoki, Terufumi
    Hatanaka, Shogo
    Hariu, Masatsugu
    Kusano, Yohsuke
    Yoshida, Daisaku
    Katoh, Hiroyuki
    Shimbo, Munefumi
    Takahashi, Takeo
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2022, 49 (01) : 727 - 741
  • [15] Evaluation of digital linac log data for patient-specific VMAT quality assurance
    U'wais, F.
    Zin, H. M.
    Radzi, Y.
    Rizan, N. N.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2021, 161 : S1346 - S1346
  • [16] Prediction of patient-specific quality assurance for volumetric modulated arc therapy using radiomics-based machine learning with dose distribution
    Ishizaka, Natsuki
    Kinoshita, Tomotaka
    Sakai, Madoka
    Tanabe, Shunpei
    Nakano, Hisashi
    Tanabe, Satoshi
    Nakamura, Sae
    Mayumi, Kazuki
    Akamatsu, Shinya
    Nishikata, Takayuki
    Takizawa, Takeshi
    Yamada, Takumi
    Sakai, Hironori
    Kaidu, Motoki
    Sasamoto, Ryuta
    Ishikawa, Hiroyuki
    Utsunomiya, Satoru
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2024, 25 (01):
  • [17] Predicting Measurement-Based Patient-Specific Quality Assurance Results for ViewRay Plans Using Machine Learning
    Witztum, A.
    Ibrahim, G.
    Wall, P.
    Lamb, J.
    Valdes, G.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2022, 49 (06) : E131 - E131
  • [18] Deep Hybrid Learning Prediction of Patient-Specific Quality Assurance in Radiotherapy: Implementation in Clinical Routine
    Moreau, Noemie
    Bonnor, Laurine
    Jaudet, Cyril
    Lechippey, Laetitia
    Falzone, Nadia
    Batalla, Alain
    Bertaut, Cindy
    Corroyer-Dulmont, Aurelien
    DIAGNOSTICS, 2023, 13 (05)
  • [19] Machine learning-generated decision boundaries for prediction and exploration of patient-specific quality assurance failures in stereotactic radiosurgery plans
    Braun, Jeremy
    Quirk, Sarah
    Tchistiakova, Ekaterina
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2022, 49 (03) : 1955 - 1963
  • [20] Evaluation of Patient-Specific Quality Assurance Based On Different Methods
    Yang, T.
    Qu, B.
    Dai, X.
    Xie, C.
    Xiaoshen, W.
    Cong, X.
    Wang, J.
    Xu, S.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2017, 44 (06) : 2896 - 2896