Cargando…

Virtual patient‐specific QA with DVH‐based metrics

We demonstrate a virtual pretreatment patient‐specific QA (PSQA) procedure that is capable of quantifying dosimetric effect on patient anatomy for both intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). A machine learning prediction model was developed to use linear...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lay, Lam M., Chuang, Kai‐Cheng, Wu, Yuyao, Giles, William, Adamson, Justus
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/PMC9680566/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35570395
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13639
_version_ 1784834448685006848
author Lay, Lam M.
Chuang, Kai‐Cheng
Wu, Yuyao
Giles, William
Adamson, Justus
author_facet Lay, Lam M.
Chuang, Kai‐Cheng
Wu, Yuyao
Giles, William
Adamson, Justus
author_sort Lay, Lam M.
collection PubMed
description We demonstrate a virtual pretreatment patient‐specific QA (PSQA) procedure that is capable of quantifying dosimetric effect on patient anatomy for both intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). A machine learning prediction model was developed to use linear accelerator parameters derived from the DICOM‐RT plan to predict delivery discrepancies at treatment delivery (defined as the difference between trajectory log file and DICOM‐RT) and was coupled with an independent Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm for dosimetric analysis. Machine learning models for IMRT and VMAT were trained and validated using 120 IMRT and 206 VMAT fields of prior patients, with 80% assigned for iterative training and testing, and 20% for post‐training validation. Various prediction models were trained and validated, with the final models selected for clinical implementation being a boosted tree and bagged tree for IMRT and VMAT, respectively. After validation, these models were then applied clinically to predict the machine parameters at treatment delivery for 7 IMRT plans from various sites (61 fields) and 10 VMAT multi‐target intracranial radiosurgery plans (35 arcs) and compared to the dosimetric effect calculated directly from trajectory log files. Dose indices tracked for targets and organs at risk included dose received by 99%, 95%, and 1% of the volume, mean dose, percent of volume receiving 25%–100% of the prescription dose. The average coefficient of determination (r (2)) when comparing intra‐field predicted and actual delivery error was 0.987 ± 0.012 for IMRT and 0.895 ± 0.095 for VMAT, whereas r (2) when comparing inter‐field predicted versus actual delivery error was 0.982 for IMRT and 0.989 for VMAT. Regarding dosimetric analysis, r (2) when comparing predicted versus actual dosimetric changes for all dose indices was 0.966 for IMRT and 0.907 for VMAT. Prediction models can be used to anticipate the dosimetric effect calculated from trajectory files and have potential as a “delivery‐free” pretreatment analysis to enhance PSQA.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9680566
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96805662022-11-23 Virtual patient‐specific QA with DVH‐based metrics Lay, Lam M. Chuang, Kai‐Cheng Wu, Yuyao Giles, William Adamson, Justus J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics We demonstrate a virtual pretreatment patient‐specific QA (PSQA) procedure that is capable of quantifying dosimetric effect on patient anatomy for both intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). A machine learning prediction model was developed to use linear accelerator parameters derived from the DICOM‐RT plan to predict delivery discrepancies at treatment delivery (defined as the difference between trajectory log file and DICOM‐RT) and was coupled with an independent Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm for dosimetric analysis. Machine learning models for IMRT and VMAT were trained and validated using 120 IMRT and 206 VMAT fields of prior patients, with 80% assigned for iterative training and testing, and 20% for post‐training validation. Various prediction models were trained and validated, with the final models selected for clinical implementation being a boosted tree and bagged tree for IMRT and VMAT, respectively. After validation, these models were then applied clinically to predict the machine parameters at treatment delivery for 7 IMRT plans from various sites (61 fields) and 10 VMAT multi‐target intracranial radiosurgery plans (35 arcs) and compared to the dosimetric effect calculated directly from trajectory log files. Dose indices tracked for targets and organs at risk included dose received by 99%, 95%, and 1% of the volume, mean dose, percent of volume receiving 25%–100% of the prescription dose. The average coefficient of determination (r (2)) when comparing intra‐field predicted and actual delivery error was 0.987 ± 0.012 for IMRT and 0.895 ± 0.095 for VMAT, whereas r (2) when comparing inter‐field predicted versus actual delivery error was 0.982 for IMRT and 0.989 for VMAT. Regarding dosimetric analysis, r (2) when comparing predicted versus actual dosimetric changes for all dose indices was 0.966 for IMRT and 0.907 for VMAT. Prediction models can be used to anticipate the dosimetric effect calculated from trajectory files and have potential as a “delivery‐free” pretreatment analysis to enhance PSQA. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-05-15 /pmc/articles/PMC9680566/ /pubmed/35570395 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13639 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
Lay, Lam M.
Chuang, Kai‐Cheng
Wu, Yuyao
Giles, William
Adamson, Justus
Virtual patient‐specific QA with DVH‐based metrics
title Virtual patient‐specific QA with DVH‐based metrics
title_full Virtual patient‐specific QA with DVH‐based metrics
title_fullStr Virtual patient‐specific QA with DVH‐based metrics
title_full_unstemmed Virtual patient‐specific QA with DVH‐based metrics
title_short Virtual patient‐specific QA with DVH‐based metrics
title_sort virtual patient‐specific qa with dvh‐based metrics
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9680566/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35570395
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13639
work_keys_str_mv AT laylamm virtualpatientspecificqawithdvhbasedmetrics
AT chuangkaicheng virtualpatientspecificqawithdvhbasedmetrics
AT wuyuyao virtualpatientspecificqawithdvhbasedmetrics
AT gileswilliam virtualpatientspecificqawithdvhbasedmetrics
AT adamsonjustus virtualpatientspecificqawithdvhbasedmetrics