Cargando…
Organ‐at‐risk dose prediction using a machine learning algorithm: Clinical validation and treatment planning benefit for lung SBRT
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the clinical performance of a machine learning (ML) algorithm for organ‐at‐risk (OAR) dose prediction for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and estimate the treatment planning benefit from having upfront access to these dose predictions. METHODS: ML models were t...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9195027/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35460150 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13609 |
_version_ | 1784726876636315648 |
---|---|
author | Brodin, N. Patrik Schulte, Leslie Velten, Christian Martin, William Shen, Sydney Shen, Jin Basavatia, Amar Ohri, Nitin Garg, Madhur K. Carpenter, Colin Tomé, Wolfgang A. |
author_facet | Brodin, N. Patrik Schulte, Leslie Velten, Christian Martin, William Shen, Sydney Shen, Jin Basavatia, Amar Ohri, Nitin Garg, Madhur K. Carpenter, Colin Tomé, Wolfgang A. |
author_sort | Brodin, N. Patrik |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To quantify the clinical performance of a machine learning (ML) algorithm for organ‐at‐risk (OAR) dose prediction for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and estimate the treatment planning benefit from having upfront access to these dose predictions. METHODS: ML models were trained using multi‐center data consisting of 209 patients previously treated with lung SBRT. Two prescription levels were investigated, 50 Gy in five fractions and 54 Gy in three fractions. Models were generated using a gradient‐boosted regression tree algorithm using grid searching with fivefold cross‐validation. Twenty patients not included in the training set were used to test OAR dose prediction performance, ten for each prescription. We also performed blinded re‐planning based on OAR dose predictions but without access to clinically delivered plans. Differences between predicted and delivered doses were assessed by root‐mean square deviation (RMSD), and statistical differences between predicted, delivered, and re‐planned doses were evaluated with one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests. RESULTS: ANOVA tests showed no significant differences between predicted, delivered, and replanned OAR doses (all p ≥ 0.36). The RMSD was 2.9, 3.9, 4.3, and 1.7Gy for max dose to the spinal cord, great vessels, heart, and trachea, respectively, for 50 Gy in five fractions. Average improvements of 1.0, 1.4, and 2.0 Gy were seen for spinal cord, esophagus, and trachea max doses in blinded replans compared to clinically delivered plans with 54 Gy in three fractions, and 1.8, 0.7, and 1.5 Gy, respectively, for the esophagus, heart and bronchus max doses with 50 Gy in five fractions. Target coverage was similar with an average PTV V100% of 94.7% for delivered plans compared to 97.3% for blinded re‐plans for 50 Gy in five fractions, and respectively 98.4% versus 99.2% for 54 Gy in three fractions. CONCLUSION: This study validated ML‐based OAR dose prediction for lung SBRT, showing potential for improved OAR dose sparing and more consistent plan quality using dose predictions for patient‐specific planning guidance. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9195027 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-91950272022-06-21 Organ‐at‐risk dose prediction using a machine learning algorithm: Clinical validation and treatment planning benefit for lung SBRT Brodin, N. Patrik Schulte, Leslie Velten, Christian Martin, William Shen, Sydney Shen, Jin Basavatia, Amar Ohri, Nitin Garg, Madhur K. Carpenter, Colin Tomé, Wolfgang A. J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics OBJECTIVE: To quantify the clinical performance of a machine learning (ML) algorithm for organ‐at‐risk (OAR) dose prediction for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and estimate the treatment planning benefit from having upfront access to these dose predictions. METHODS: ML models were trained using multi‐center data consisting of 209 patients previously treated with lung SBRT. Two prescription levels were investigated, 50 Gy in five fractions and 54 Gy in three fractions. Models were generated using a gradient‐boosted regression tree algorithm using grid searching with fivefold cross‐validation. Twenty patients not included in the training set were used to test OAR dose prediction performance, ten for each prescription. We also performed blinded re‐planning based on OAR dose predictions but without access to clinically delivered plans. Differences between predicted and delivered doses were assessed by root‐mean square deviation (RMSD), and statistical differences between predicted, delivered, and re‐planned doses were evaluated with one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests. RESULTS: ANOVA tests showed no significant differences between predicted, delivered, and replanned OAR doses (all p ≥ 0.36). The RMSD was 2.9, 3.9, 4.3, and 1.7Gy for max dose to the spinal cord, great vessels, heart, and trachea, respectively, for 50 Gy in five fractions. Average improvements of 1.0, 1.4, and 2.0 Gy were seen for spinal cord, esophagus, and trachea max doses in blinded replans compared to clinically delivered plans with 54 Gy in three fractions, and 1.8, 0.7, and 1.5 Gy, respectively, for the esophagus, heart and bronchus max doses with 50 Gy in five fractions. Target coverage was similar with an average PTV V100% of 94.7% for delivered plans compared to 97.3% for blinded re‐plans for 50 Gy in five fractions, and respectively 98.4% versus 99.2% for 54 Gy in three fractions. CONCLUSION: This study validated ML‐based OAR dose prediction for lung SBRT, showing potential for improved OAR dose sparing and more consistent plan quality using dose predictions for patient‐specific planning guidance. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-04-23 /pmc/articles/PMC9195027/ /pubmed/35460150 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13609 Text en © 2022 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 Brodin, N. Patrik Schulte, Leslie Velten, Christian Martin, William Shen, Sydney Shen, Jin Basavatia, Amar Ohri, Nitin Garg, Madhur K. Carpenter, Colin Tomé, Wolfgang A. Organ‐at‐risk dose prediction using a machine learning algorithm: Clinical validation and treatment planning benefit for lung SBRT |
title | Organ‐at‐risk dose prediction using a machine learning algorithm: Clinical validation and treatment planning benefit for lung SBRT |
title_full | Organ‐at‐risk dose prediction using a machine learning algorithm: Clinical validation and treatment planning benefit for lung SBRT |
title_fullStr | Organ‐at‐risk dose prediction using a machine learning algorithm: Clinical validation and treatment planning benefit for lung SBRT |
title_full_unstemmed | Organ‐at‐risk dose prediction using a machine learning algorithm: Clinical validation and treatment planning benefit for lung SBRT |
title_short | Organ‐at‐risk dose prediction using a machine learning algorithm: Clinical validation and treatment planning benefit for lung SBRT |
title_sort | organ‐at‐risk dose prediction using a machine learning algorithm: clinical validation and treatment planning benefit for lung sbrt |
topic | Radiation Oncology Physics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9195027/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35460150 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13609 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT brodinnpatrik organatriskdosepredictionusingamachinelearningalgorithmclinicalvalidationandtreatmentplanningbenefitforlungsbrt AT schulteleslie organatriskdosepredictionusingamachinelearningalgorithmclinicalvalidationandtreatmentplanningbenefitforlungsbrt AT veltenchristian organatriskdosepredictionusingamachinelearningalgorithmclinicalvalidationandtreatmentplanningbenefitforlungsbrt AT martinwilliam organatriskdosepredictionusingamachinelearningalgorithmclinicalvalidationandtreatmentplanningbenefitforlungsbrt AT shensydney organatriskdosepredictionusingamachinelearningalgorithmclinicalvalidationandtreatmentplanningbenefitforlungsbrt AT shenjin organatriskdosepredictionusingamachinelearningalgorithmclinicalvalidationandtreatmentplanningbenefitforlungsbrt AT basavatiaamar organatriskdosepredictionusingamachinelearningalgorithmclinicalvalidationandtreatmentplanningbenefitforlungsbrt AT ohrinitin organatriskdosepredictionusingamachinelearningalgorithmclinicalvalidationandtreatmentplanningbenefitforlungsbrt AT gargmadhurk organatriskdosepredictionusingamachinelearningalgorithmclinicalvalidationandtreatmentplanningbenefitforlungsbrt AT carpentercolin organatriskdosepredictionusingamachinelearningalgorithmclinicalvalidationandtreatmentplanningbenefitforlungsbrt AT tomewolfganga organatriskdosepredictionusingamachinelearningalgorithmclinicalvalidationandtreatmentplanningbenefitforlungsbrt |