Virtual patient-specific QA with DVH-based metrics

被引:5
|
作者
Lay, Lam M. [1 ]
Chuang, Kai-Cheng [2 ]
Wu, Yuyao [2 ]
Giles, William [3 ]
Adamson, Justus [3 ]
机构
[1] Duke Univ, Med Phys Grad Program, Durham, NC 27710 USA
[2] Duke Kunshan Univ, Med Phys Grad Program, Kunshan, Peoples R China
[3] Duke Univ, Dept Radiat Oncol, Med Ctr, 200 Trent Dr, Durham, NC 27710 USA
来源
关键词
AI; artificial intelligence; IMRT QA; TRAJECTORY LOG FILES; IMRT QA; PASSING RATES; VMAT; VERIFICATION; PREDICTION; ALGORITHM; ERRORS;
D O I
10.1002/acm2.13639
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
We demonstrate a virtual pretreatment patient-specific QA (PSQA) procedure that is capable of quantifying dosimetric effect on patient anatomy for both intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). A machine learning prediction model was developed to use linear accelerator parameters derived from the DICOM-RT plan to predict delivery discrepancies at treatment delivery (defined as the difference between trajectory log file and DICOM-RT) and was coupled with an independent Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm for dosimetric analysis. Machine learning models for IMRT and VMAT were trained and validated using 120 IMRT and 206 VMAT fields of prior patients, with 80% assigned for iterative training and testing, and 20% for post-training validation. Various prediction models were trained and validated, with the final models selected for clinical implementation being a boosted tree and bagged tree for IMRT and VMAT, respectively. After validation, these models were then applied clinically to predict the machine parameters at treatment delivery for 7 IMRT plans from various sites (61 fields) and 10 VMAT multi-target intracranial radiosurgery plans (35 arcs) and compared to the dosimetric effect calculated directly from trajectory log files. Dose indices tracked for targets and organs at risk included dose received by 99%, 95%, and 1% of the volume, mean dose, percent of volume receiving 25%-100% of the prescription dose. The average coefficient of determination (r(2)) when comparing intra-field predicted and actual delivery error was 0.987 +/- 0.012 for IMRT and 0.895 +/- 0.095 for VMAT, whereas r(2) when comparing inter-field predicted versus actual delivery error was 0.982 for IMRT and 0.989 for VMAT. Regarding dosimetric analysis, r(2) when comparing predicted versus actual dosimetric changes for all dose indices was 0.966 for IMRT and 0.907 for VMAT. Prediction models can be used to anticipate the dosimetric effect calculated from trajectory files and have potential as a "delivery-free" pretreatment analysis to enhance PSQA.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Moving from gamma passing rates to patient DVH-based QA metrics in pretreatment dose QA
    Zhen, Heming
    Nelms, Benjamin E.
    Tomeacute, Wolfgang A.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2011, 38 (10) : 5477 - 5489
  • [2] Evaluation of a Patient DVH-Based IMRT QA System
    Zhen, H.
    Redler, G.
    Chu, J.
    Turian, J.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2016, 43 (06) : 3528 - 3528
  • [3] Evaluation of patient DVH-based QA metrics for prostate VMAT: correlation between accuracy of estimated 3D patient dose and magnitude of MLC misalignment
    Kadoya, Noriyuki
    Saito, Masahide
    Ogasawara, Makoto
    Fujita, Yukio
    Ito, Kengo
    Sato, Kiyokazu
    Kishi, Kazuma
    Dobashi, Suguru
    Takeda, Ken
    Jingu, Keiichi
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2015, 16 (03): : 179 - 189
  • [4] Evaluation of Patient DVH-Based QA Metrics for Prostate VMAT: Correlation Between Accuracy of Estimated 3D Patient Dose and MLC Position Error
    Kadoya, N.
    Saito, M.
    Fujita, Y.
    Ogasawara, M.
    Ito, K.
    Sato, K.
    Kishi, K.
    Dobashi, S.
    Takeda, K.
    Jingu, K.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2015, 42 (06) : 3629 - 3629
  • [5] Development of Physician-Driven, Clinically-Relevant Pass/fail Criteria for a DVH-Based IMRT Patient Specific QA Program
    Price, A.
    Lawrence, M.
    Das, S.
    Rankine, L.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2016, 43 (06) : 3529 - 3529
  • [6] Evaluation of Delivered Dose Distributions and Metrics: A New Patient-specific QA Protocol
    Klaers, J.
    Saito, A.
    Goddu, S. M.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2012, 84 (03): : S810 - S811
  • [7] Patient-specific QA using DVH analysis provides better clinical relevance of complex VMAT plans
    Yoosuf, A.
    AlShehri, S.
    AlHadab, A.
    Alqathami, M.
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2020, 152 : S711 - S711
  • [8] Verification of 3DVH Dose Distribution Before Clinical Implementation for Patient-Specific IMRT QA
    McFadden, D.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2015, 42 (06) : 3521 - 3521
  • [9] Reproducibility in patient-specific IMRT QA
    McKenzie, Elizabeth M.
    Balter, Peter A.
    Stingo, Francesco C.
    Jones, Jimmy
    Followill, David S.
    Kry, Stephen F.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2014, 15 (03): : 241 - 251
  • [10] PATIENT-SPECIFIC QA FOR ADAPTIVE RADIOTHERAPY
    van Elmpt, W.
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2011, 99 : S234 - S234