Cargando…

Spot delivery error predictions for intensity modulated proton therapy using robustness analysis with machine learning

The purpose of this work is to assess the robustness of treatment plans when spot delivery errors were predicted with a machine learning (ML) model for intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Over 6000 machine log files from delivered IMPT treatment plans were included in this study. From these l...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Newpower, Mark A., Chiang, Bing‐Hao, Ahmad, Salahuddin, Chen, Yong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10161119/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36748663
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13911
_version_ 1785037425434689536
author Newpower, Mark A.
Chiang, Bing‐Hao
Ahmad, Salahuddin
Chen, Yong
author_facet Newpower, Mark A.
Chiang, Bing‐Hao
Ahmad, Salahuddin
Chen, Yong
author_sort Newpower, Mark A.
collection PubMed
description The purpose of this work is to assess the robustness of treatment plans when spot delivery errors were predicted with a machine learning (ML) model for intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Over 6000 machine log files from delivered IMPT treatment plans were included in this study. From these log files, over 4.1  [Formula: see text] 10(6) delivered proton spots were used to train the ML model. The presented model was tested and used to predict the spot position as well as the monitor units (MU) per spot, based on the original planning parameters. Two patient plans (one accelerated partial breast irradiation [APBI] and one ependymoma) were recalculated with the predicted spot position/MUs by the ML model and then were re‐analyzed for robustness. Plans with ML predicted spots were less robust than the original clinical plans. In the APBI plan, dosimetric changes to the left lung and heart were not clinically relevant. In the ependymoma plan, the hot spot in the brainstem decreased and the hot spot in the cervical cord increased. Despite these differences, after robustness analysis, both ML spot delivery error plans resulted in >95% of the CTV receiving >95% of the prescription dose. The presented workflow has the potential benefit of including realistic spots information for plan quality checks in IMPT. This work demonstrates that in the two example plans, the plans were still robust when accounting for spot delivery errors as predicted by the ML model.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10161119
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101611192023-05-06 Spot delivery error predictions for intensity modulated proton therapy using robustness analysis with machine learning Newpower, Mark A. Chiang, Bing‐Hao Ahmad, Salahuddin Chen, Yong J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics The purpose of this work is to assess the robustness of treatment plans when spot delivery errors were predicted with a machine learning (ML) model for intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Over 6000 machine log files from delivered IMPT treatment plans were included in this study. From these log files, over 4.1  [Formula: see text] 10(6) delivered proton spots were used to train the ML model. The presented model was tested and used to predict the spot position as well as the monitor units (MU) per spot, based on the original planning parameters. Two patient plans (one accelerated partial breast irradiation [APBI] and one ependymoma) were recalculated with the predicted spot position/MUs by the ML model and then were re‐analyzed for robustness. Plans with ML predicted spots were less robust than the original clinical plans. In the APBI plan, dosimetric changes to the left lung and heart were not clinically relevant. In the ependymoma plan, the hot spot in the brainstem decreased and the hot spot in the cervical cord increased. Despite these differences, after robustness analysis, both ML spot delivery error plans resulted in >95% of the CTV receiving >95% of the prescription dose. The presented workflow has the potential benefit of including realistic spots information for plan quality checks in IMPT. This work demonstrates that in the two example plans, the plans were still robust when accounting for spot delivery errors as predicted by the ML model. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-02-07 /pmc/articles/PMC10161119/ /pubmed/36748663 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13911 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Newpower, Mark A.
Chiang, Bing‐Hao
Ahmad, Salahuddin
Chen, Yong
Spot delivery error predictions for intensity modulated proton therapy using robustness analysis with machine learning
title Spot delivery error predictions for intensity modulated proton therapy using robustness analysis with machine learning
title_full Spot delivery error predictions for intensity modulated proton therapy using robustness analysis with machine learning
title_fullStr Spot delivery error predictions for intensity modulated proton therapy using robustness analysis with machine learning
title_full_unstemmed Spot delivery error predictions for intensity modulated proton therapy using robustness analysis with machine learning
title_short Spot delivery error predictions for intensity modulated proton therapy using robustness analysis with machine learning
title_sort spot delivery error predictions for intensity modulated proton therapy using robustness analysis with machine learning
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10161119/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36748663
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13911
work_keys_str_mv AT newpowermarka spotdeliveryerrorpredictionsforintensitymodulatedprotontherapyusingrobustnessanalysiswithmachinelearning
AT chiangbinghao spotdeliveryerrorpredictionsforintensitymodulatedprotontherapyusingrobustnessanalysiswithmachinelearning
AT ahmadsalahuddin spotdeliveryerrorpredictionsforintensitymodulatedprotontherapyusingrobustnessanalysiswithmachinelearning
AT chenyong spotdeliveryerrorpredictionsforintensitymodulatedprotontherapyusingrobustnessanalysiswithmachinelearning