Improvement of deep learning prediction model in patient-specific QA for VMAT with MLC leaf position map and patient's dose distribution.

PURPOSE: Deep learning-based virtual patient-specific quality assurance (QA) is a novel technique that enables patient QA without measurement. However, this method could be improved by further evaluating the optimal data to be used as input. Therefore, a deep learning-based model that uses multileaf collimator (MLC) information per control point and dose distribution in patient's CT as inputs was developed. METHODS: Overall, 96 volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans generated for prostate cancer treatment were used. We developed a model (Model 1) that can predict measurement-based gamma passing rate (GPR) for a treatment plan using data stored as a map reflecting the MLC leaf position at each control point (MLPM) and data of the dose distribution in patient's CT as inputs. The evaluation of the model was based on the mean absolute error (MAE) and Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) between the measured and predicted GPR. For comparison, we also analyzed models trained with the dose distribution in patient's CT alone (Model 2) and with dose distributions recalculated on a virtual phantom CT (Model 3). RESULTS: At the 2%/2 mm criterion, MAE[%] and r for Model 1, Model 2, and Model 3 were 2.32% ± 0.43% and 0.54 ± 0.03, 2.70% ± 0.26%, and 0.32 ± 0.08, and 2.96% ± 0.23% and 0.24 ± 0.22, respectively; at the 3%/3 mm criterion, these values were 1.25% ± 0.05% and 0.36 ± 0.18, 1.57% ± 0.35% and 0.19 ± 0.20, and 1.39% ± 0.32% and 0.17 ± 0.22, respectively. This result showed that Model 1 exhibited the lowest MAE and highest r at both criteria of 2%/2 mm and 3%3 mm. CONCLUSIONS: These findings showed that a model that combines the MLPM and dose distribution in patient's CT exhibited a better GPR prediction performance compared with the other two studied models.

Assessment of the deep learning-based gamma passing rate prediction system for 1.5 T magnetic resonance-guided linear accelerator.

Measurement-based verification is impossible for the patient-specific quality assurance (QA) of online adaptive magnetic resonance imaging-guided radiotherapy (oMRgRT) because the patient remains on the couch throughout the session. We assessed a deep learning (DL) system for oMRgRT to predict the gamma passing rate (GPR). This study collected 125 verification plans [reference plan (RP), 100; adapted plan (AP), 25] from patients with prostate cancer treated using Elekta Unity. Based on our previous study, we employed a convolutional neural network that predicted the GPRs of nine pairs of gamma criteria from 1%/1 mm to 3%/3 mm. First, we trained and tested the DL model using RPs (n = 75 and n = 25 for training and testing, respectively) for its optimization. Second, we tested the GPR prediction accuracy using APs to determine whether the DL model could be applied to APs. The mean absolute error (MAE) and correlation coefficient (r) of the RPs were 1.22 ± 0.27% and 0.29 ± 0.10 in 3%/2 mm, 1.35 ± 0.16% and 0.37 ± 0.15 in 2%/2 mm, and 3.62 ± 0.55% and 0.32 ± 0.14 in 1%/1 mm, respectively. The MAE and r of the APs were 1.13 ± 0.33% and 0.35 ± 0.22 in 3%/2 mm, 1.68 ± 0.47% and 0.30 ± 0.11 in 2%/2 mm, and 5.08 ± 0.29% and 0.15 ± 0.10 in 1%/1 mm, respectively. The time cost was within 3 s for the prediction. The results suggest the DL-based model has the potential for rapid GPR prediction in Elekta Unity.

Evaluation of deep learning-based deliverable VMAT plan generated by prototype software for automated planning for prostate cancer patients.

This study aims to evaluate the dosimetric accuracy of a deep learning (DL)-based deliverable volumetric arc radiation therapy (VMAT) plan generated using DL-based automated planning assistant system (AIVOT, prototype version) for patients with prostate cancer. The VMAT data (cliDose) of 68 patients with prostate cancer treated with VMAT treatment (70-74 Gy/28-37 fr) at our hospital were used (n = 55 for training and n = 13 for testing). First, a HD-U-net-based 3D dose prediction model implemented in AIVOT was customized using the VMAT data. Thus, a predictive VMAT plan (preDose) comprising AIVOT that predicted the 3D doses was generated. Second, deliverable VMAT plans (deliDose) were created using AIVOT, the radiation treatment planning system Eclipse (version 15.6) and its vender-supplied objective functions. Finally, we compared these two estimated DL-based VMAT treatment plans-i.e. preDose and deliDose-with cliDose. The average absolute dose difference of all DVH parameters for the target tissue between cliDose and deliDose across all patients was 1.32 ± 1.35% (range: 0.04-6.21%), while that for all the organs at risks was 2.08 ± 2.79% (range: 0.00-15.4%). The deliDose was superior to the cliDose in all DVH parameters for bladder and rectum. The blinded plan scoring of deliDose and cliDose was 4.54 ± 0.50 and 5.0 ± 0.0, respectively (All plans scored ≥4 points, P = 0.03.) This study demonstrated that DL-based deliverable plan for prostate cancer achieved the clinically acceptable level. Thus, the AIVOT software exhibited a potential for automated planning with no intervention for patients with prostate cancer.