Cargando…

Technical Note: Using k‐means clustering to determine the number and position of isocenters in MLC‐based multiple target intracranial radiosurgery

PURPOSE: To present the k‐means clustering algorithm as a tool to address treatment planning considerations characteristic of stereotactic radiosurgery using a single isocenter for multiple targets. METHODS: For 30 patients treated with stereotactic radiosurgery for multiple brain metastases, the ge...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yock, Adam D., Kim, Gwe‐Ya
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5875844/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28727284
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12139
_version_ 1783310424474648576
author Yock, Adam D.
Kim, Gwe‐Ya
author_facet Yock, Adam D.
Kim, Gwe‐Ya
author_sort Yock, Adam D.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To present the k‐means clustering algorithm as a tool to address treatment planning considerations characteristic of stereotactic radiosurgery using a single isocenter for multiple targets. METHODS: For 30 patients treated with stereotactic radiosurgery for multiple brain metastases, the geometric centroids and radii of each met were determined from the treatment planning system. In‐house software used this as well as weighted and unweighted versions of the k‐means clustering algorithm to group the targets to be treated with a single isocenter, and to position each isocenter. The algorithm results were evaluated using within‐cluster sum of squares as well as a minimum target coverage metric that considered the effect of target size. Both versions of the algorithm were applied to an example patient to demonstrate the prospective determination of the appropriate number and location of isocenters. RESULTS: Both weighted and unweighted versions of the k‐means algorithm were applied successfully to determine the number and position of isocenters. Comparing the two, both the within‐cluster sum of squares metric and the minimum target coverage metric resulting from the unweighted version were less than those from the weighted version. The average magnitudes of the differences were small (−0.2 cm(2) and 0.1% for the within cluster sum of squares and minimum target coverage, respectively) but statistically significant (Wilcoxon signed‐rank test, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The differences between the versions of the k‐means clustering algorithm represented an advantage of the unweighted version for the within‐cluster sum of squares metric, and an advantage of the weighted version for the minimum target coverage metric. While additional treatment planning considerations have a large influence on the final treatment plan quality, both versions of the k‐means algorithm provide automatic, consistent, quantitative, and objective solutions to the tasks associated with SRS treatment planning using a single isocenter for multiple targets.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5875844
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58758442018-04-02 Technical Note: Using k‐means clustering to determine the number and position of isocenters in MLC‐based multiple target intracranial radiosurgery Yock, Adam D. Kim, Gwe‐Ya J Appl Clin Med Phys Technical Notes PURPOSE: To present the k‐means clustering algorithm as a tool to address treatment planning considerations characteristic of stereotactic radiosurgery using a single isocenter for multiple targets. METHODS: For 30 patients treated with stereotactic radiosurgery for multiple brain metastases, the geometric centroids and radii of each met were determined from the treatment planning system. In‐house software used this as well as weighted and unweighted versions of the k‐means clustering algorithm to group the targets to be treated with a single isocenter, and to position each isocenter. The algorithm results were evaluated using within‐cluster sum of squares as well as a minimum target coverage metric that considered the effect of target size. Both versions of the algorithm were applied to an example patient to demonstrate the prospective determination of the appropriate number and location of isocenters. RESULTS: Both weighted and unweighted versions of the k‐means algorithm were applied successfully to determine the number and position of isocenters. Comparing the two, both the within‐cluster sum of squares metric and the minimum target coverage metric resulting from the unweighted version were less than those from the weighted version. The average magnitudes of the differences were small (−0.2 cm(2) and 0.1% for the within cluster sum of squares and minimum target coverage, respectively) but statistically significant (Wilcoxon signed‐rank test, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The differences between the versions of the k‐means clustering algorithm represented an advantage of the unweighted version for the within‐cluster sum of squares metric, and an advantage of the weighted version for the minimum target coverage metric. While additional treatment planning considerations have a large influence on the final treatment plan quality, both versions of the k‐means algorithm provide automatic, consistent, quantitative, and objective solutions to the tasks associated with SRS treatment planning using a single isocenter for multiple targets. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-07-20 /pmc/articles/PMC5875844/ /pubmed/28727284 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12139 Text en © 2017 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Technical Notes
Yock, Adam D.
Kim, Gwe‐Ya
Technical Note: Using k‐means clustering to determine the number and position of isocenters in MLC‐based multiple target intracranial radiosurgery
title Technical Note: Using k‐means clustering to determine the number and position of isocenters in MLC‐based multiple target intracranial radiosurgery
title_full Technical Note: Using k‐means clustering to determine the number and position of isocenters in MLC‐based multiple target intracranial radiosurgery
title_fullStr Technical Note: Using k‐means clustering to determine the number and position of isocenters in MLC‐based multiple target intracranial radiosurgery
title_full_unstemmed Technical Note: Using k‐means clustering to determine the number and position of isocenters in MLC‐based multiple target intracranial radiosurgery
title_short Technical Note: Using k‐means clustering to determine the number and position of isocenters in MLC‐based multiple target intracranial radiosurgery
title_sort technical note: using k‐means clustering to determine the number and position of isocenters in mlc‐based multiple target intracranial radiosurgery
topic Technical Notes
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5875844/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28727284
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12139
work_keys_str_mv AT yockadamd technicalnoteusingkmeansclusteringtodeterminethenumberandpositionofisocentersinmlcbasedmultipletargetintracranialradiosurgery
AT kimgweya technicalnoteusingkmeansclusteringtodeterminethenumberandpositionofisocentersinmlcbasedmultipletargetintracranialradiosurgery