Machine learning-generated decision boundaries for prediction and exploration of patient-specific quality assurance failures in stereotactic radiosurgery plans.
machine learning
stereotactic radiosurgery
Journal
Medical physics
ISSN: 2473-4209
Titre abrégé: Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425746
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2022
Mar 2022
Historique:
revised:
20
12
2021
received:
21
05
2021
accepted:
20
12
2021
pubmed:
23
1
2022
medline:
11
3
2022
entrez:
22
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is a form of radiotherapy treatment during which high radiation dose is delivered in a single or few fractions. These treatments require highly conformal plans with steep dose gradients, which can result in an increase in plan complexity prompting the need for stringent pretreatment patient-specific quality assurance (QA) measurements to ensure the planned and measured dose distributions agree within clinical standards. Complexity scores and machine learning (ML) techniques may help with prediction of QA outcomes; however interpretability and usability of those results continues to be an area of study. This study investigates the use of plan complexity metrics as input for an ML model to allow for prediction of QA outcomes for SRS plans as measured via three-dimension (3D) phantom dose verification. Explorations into interpretability and predictive ability, as well as a prospective in-clinic implementation using the resulting model were performed. Four hundred ninety-eight plans (1571 volumetric modulated arc therapy arcs) were processed via in-house script to generate several complexity scores. 3D phantom dose verification measurement results were extracted and classified as pass or failure (with failures defined as below 95% voxel agreement passing 3%/1-mm gamma criteria with 10% threshold,) and 1472 of the arcs were split into training and testing sets, with 99 arcs as a sequential holdout set. A z-score scaler was trained on the training set and used to scale all other sets. Variations of multi-leaf collimator (MLC) leaf movement variability, aperture complexity, and leaf size, and monitor unit (MU) at control point weighted target area scores were used as input to a support vector classifier to generate a series of 1D, 2D, and 5D decision boundaries. The best performing 5D model was then used within a prospective in-clinic study providing predictions to physicists prior to ordering 3D phantom dose verification measurements for 38 patient plans (112 arcs). The decision to order 3D phantom dose verification measurements was recorded before and after prediction. Best performing 1D threshold and 2D prediction models with best performance produced a QA failure recall and QA passing recall of 1.00 and 0.55, and 0.82 and 0.82, respectively. Best performing 5D prediction model produced a QA failure recall (sensitivity) of 1.00 and QA passing recall (specificity) of 0.72. This model was then used within a prospective in-clinic study providing predictions to physicists prior to ordering 3D phantom dose verification measurements and achieved a QA failure recall of 1.00 and QA passing recall of 0.58. The decision to order 3D phantom dose verification measurements was recorded before and after measurement. A single initially unidentified failing plan of the prospective cohort was successfully predicted to fail by the model. Implementation of complexity score-based prediction models for SRS would allow for support of a clinician's decision to reduce time spent performing QA measurements and avoid patient treatment delays (i.e., in case of QA failure).
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1955-1963Informations de copyright
© 2022 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Wu Q, Mcmahon R, Chang Z, et al. SU-FF-T-301: clinical implementation and commission of volumetric modulated arc therapy. Med Phys. 2009;36(6Part13):2590-2590.
Younge KC, Roberts D, Janes LA, Anderson C, Moran JM, Matuszak MM. Predicting deliverability of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans using aperture complexity analysis. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016;17(4):124-131.
Park J, Park SY, Kim H, Kim J, Carlson J, Ye SJ. Modulation indices for volumetric modulated arc therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59(23):7315-7340.
Mcgarry CK, Agnew CE, Hussein M, et al. The role of complexity metrics in a multi-institutional dosimetry audit of VMAT. Br J Radiol. 2016;89(1057):20150445.
Götstedt J, Hauer AK, Back A. Complexity metric as a complement to measurement based IMRT/VMAT patient-specific QA. J Phys Conf Ser. 2015;573(1):012016.
Chun M, Joon An H, Kwon O, Oh DH, Park JM, Kim J. Impact of plan parameters and modulation indices on patient-specific QA results for standard and stereotactic VMAT. Physica Med. 2019;62:83-94.
Valdes G, Chan MF, Lim SB, Scheuermann R, Deasy JO, Solberg TD. IMRT QA using machine learning: a multi-institutional validation. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017;18:279-284.
Lam D, Zhang X, Li H, et al. Predicting gamma passing rates for portal dosimetry-based IMRT QA using machine learning. Med Phys. 2019;46:4666-4675.
Valdes G, Scheuermann R, Hung CY, Olszanski A, Bellerive M, Solberg TD. A mathematical framework for virtual IMRT QA using machine learning. Med Phys. 2016;43:4323-4334.
Granville DA, Sutherland JG, Belec JG, La Russa DJ. Predicting VMAT patient-specific-QA results using a support vector classifier trained on treatment plan characteristics and linac QC metrics. Phys Med Biol. 2019;64(9):095017.
Li J, Wang L, Zhang X, et al. Machine learning for patient-specific quality assurance of VMAT: prediction and classification accuracy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019;105(4):893-902.
Ono T, Hirashima H, Iramina H, et al. Prediction of dosimetric accuracy for VMAT plans using plan complexity parameters via machine learning. Med Phys. 2019;46(9):3823-3832.
Wall PD, Fontenot JD. Application and comparison of machine learning models for predicting quality assurance outcomes in radiation therapy treatment planning. Inf Med Unlocked. 2020;18:100292.
Chan MF, Witztum A, Valdes G. Integration of AI and machine learning in radiotherapy QA. Front Artif Intell. 2020;3:76.
Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, et al. Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. J Mach Learn Res. 2011;12:2825-2830.
Rung-Ching C, Dewi C, Huang SW, Caraka RE. Selecting critical features for data classification based on machine learning methods. J Big Data. 2020;7:1-26.
Hernandez V, Saez J, Pasler M, Jurado-Bruggeman D, Jornet N. Comparison of complexity metrics for multi-institutional evaluations of treatment plans in radiotherapy. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2018;5:37-43.
Bergstra J, Bengio Y. Random search for hyper-parameter optimization. J Mach Learn Res. 2012;13:281-305.