Cargando…
A feasibility study on an automated method to generate patient‐specific dose distributions for radiotherapy using deep learning
PURPOSE: To develop a method for predicting optimal dose distributions, given the planning image and segmented anatomy, by applying deep learning techniques to a database of previously optimized and approved Intensity‐modulated radiation therapy treatment plans. METHODS: Eighty cases of early‐stage...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7379709/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30367492 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mp.13262 |
Sumario: | PURPOSE: To develop a method for predicting optimal dose distributions, given the planning image and segmented anatomy, by applying deep learning techniques to a database of previously optimized and approved Intensity‐modulated radiation therapy treatment plans. METHODS: Eighty cases of early‐stage nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) were included in the study. Seventy cases were chosen randomly as the training set and the remaining as the test set. The inputs were the images with structures, with each target and organs at risk (OARs) assigned a unique label. The outputs were dose maps, including coarse dose maps and converted fine dose maps (FDM) from convolution. Two types of input images with structures were used in the model building. One type of input included the images (with associated structures) without manipulation. The second type of input involved modifying the image gray label with information from radiation beam geometry. ResNet101 was chosen as the deep learning network for both. The accuracy of predicted dose distributions was evaluated against the corresponding dose as used in the clinic. A global three‐dimensional gamma analysis was calculated for the evaluation. RESULTS: The proposed model trained with the two different sets of input images and structures could both predict patient‐specific dose distributions accurately. For the out‐of‐field dose distributions, the model obtained from the input with radiation geometry performed better (dose difference in %, 4.7 ± 6.1% vs 5.5 ± 7.9%, P < 0.05). The mean Gamma pass rates of dose distributions predicted with both types of input were comparable for most OARs (P > 0.05), except for the bilateral optic nerves and the optic chiasm. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed system with radiation geometry added to the input is a promising method to generate patient‐specific dose distributions for radiotherapy. It can be applied to obtain the dose distributions slice‐by‐slice for planning quality assurance and for guiding automated planning. |
---|