Cargando…
MR‐based treatment planning in radiation therapy using a deep learning approach
PURPOSE: To develop and evaluate the feasibility of deep learning approaches for MR‐based treatment planning (deepMTP) in brain tumor radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A treatment planning pipeline was constructed using a deep learning approach to generate continuously valued pseudo CT image...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6414148/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30861275 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12554 |
Sumario: | PURPOSE: To develop and evaluate the feasibility of deep learning approaches for MR‐based treatment planning (deepMTP) in brain tumor radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A treatment planning pipeline was constructed using a deep learning approach to generate continuously valued pseudo CT images from MR images. A deep convolutional neural network was designed to identify tissue features in volumetric head MR images training with co‐registered kVCT images. A set of 40 retrospective 3D T1‐weighted head images was utilized to train the model, and evaluated in 10 clinical cases with brain metastases by comparing treatment plans using deep learning generated pseudo CT and using an acquired planning kVCT. Paired‐sample Wilcoxon signed rank sum tests were used for statistical analysis to compare dosimetric parameters of plans made with pseudo CT images generated from deepMTP to those made with kVCT‐based clinical treatment plan (CTTP). RESULTS: deepMTP provides an accurate pseudo CT with Dice coefficients for air: 0.95 ± 0.01, soft tissue: 0.94 ± 0.02, and bone: 0.85 ± 0.02 and a mean absolute error of 75 ± 23 HU compared with acquired kVCTs. The absolute percentage differences of dosimetric parameters between deepMTP and CTTP was 0.24% ± 0.46% for planning target volume (PTV) volume, 1.39% ± 1.31% for maximum dose and 0.27% ± 0.79% for the PTV receiving 95% of the prescribed dose (V95). Furthermore, no significant difference was found for PTV volume (P = 0.50), the maximum dose (P = 0.83) and V95 (P = 0.19) between deepMTP and CTTP. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed an automated approach (deepMTP) that allows generation of a continuously valued pseudo CT from a single high‐resolution 3D MR image and evaluated it in partial brain tumor treatment planning. The deepMTP provided dose distribution with no significant difference relative to a kVCT‐based standard volumetric modulated arc therapy plans. |
---|