Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Using machine learning to predict gamma passing rate in volumetric-modulated arc therapy treatment plans.
Salari, Elahheh; Shuai Xu, Kevin; Sperling, Nicholas Niven; Parsai, E Ishmael.
Afiliación
  • Salari E; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, Ohio, USA.
  • Shuai Xu K; Department of Computer and Data Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
  • Sperling NN; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, Ohio, USA.
  • Parsai EI; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, Ohio, USA.
J Appl Clin Med Phys ; 24(2): e13824, 2023 Feb.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36495010
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

This study aims to develop an algorithm to predict gamma passing rate (GPR) in the volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

A total of 118 clinical VMAT plans, including 28 mediastina, 25 head and neck, 40 brains intensity-modulated radiosurgery, and 25 prostate cases, were created in RayStation treatment planning system for Edge and TrueBeam linacs. In-house scripts were developed to compute Modulation indices such as plan-averaged beam area (PA), plan-averaged beam irregularity (PI), total monitor unit (MU), leaf travel/arc length, mean dose rate variation, and mean gantry speed variation. Pretreatment verifications were performed on ArcCHECK phantom with SNC software. GPR was calculated with 3%/2 mm and 10% threshold. The dataset was randomly split into a training (70%) and a test (30%) dataset. A random forest regression (RFR) model and support vector regression (SVR) with linear kernel were trained to predict GPR using the complexity metrics as input. The prediction performance was evaluated by calculating the mean absolute error (MAE), R2 , and root mean square error (RMSE).

RESULTS:

RMSEs at γ 3%/2 mm for RFR and SVR were 1.407 ± 0.103 and 1.447 ± 0.121, respectively. MAE was 1.14 ± 0.084 for RFR and 1.101 ± 0.09 for SVR. R2 was equal to 0.703 ± 0.027 and 0.689 ± 0.053 for RFR and SVR, respectively. GPR of 3%/2 mm with a 10% threshold can be predicted with an error smaller than 3% for 94% of plans using RFR and SVR models. The most important metrics that had the greatest impact on how accurately GPR can be predicted were determined to be the PA, PI, and total MU.

CONCLUSION:

In terms of its prediction values and errors, SVR (linear) appeared to be comparable with RFR for this dataset. Based on our results, the PA, PI, and total MU calculations may be useful in guiding VMAT plan evaluation and ultimately reducing uncertainties in planning and radiation delivery.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Radiocirugia / Radioterapia de Intensidad Modulada Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: J Appl Clin Med Phys Asunto de la revista: BIOFISICA Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Radiocirugia / Radioterapia de Intensidad Modulada Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: J Appl Clin Med Phys Asunto de la revista: BIOFISICA Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos