Modeling linear accelerator (Linac) beam data by implicit neural representation learning for commissioning and quality assurance applications.


Journal

Medical physics
ISSN: 2473-4209
Titre abrégé: Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425746

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
May 2023
Historique:
revised: 21 12 2022
received: 24 09 2022
accepted: 01 01 2023
pmc-release: 01 05 2024
medline: 10 5 2023
pubmed: 10 1 2023
entrez: 9 1 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Linear accelerator (Linac) beam data commissioning and quality assurance (QA) play a vital role in accurate radiation treatment delivery and entail a large number of measurements using a variety of field sizes. How to optimize the effort in data acquisition while maintaining high quality of medical physics practice has been sought after. We propose to model Linac beam data through implicit neural representation (NeRP) learning. The potential of the beam model in predicting beam data from sparse measurements and detecting data collection errors was evaluated, with the goal of using the beam model to verify beam data collection accuracy and simplify the commissioning and QA process. NeRP models with continuous and differentiable functions parameterized by multilayer perceptrons (MLPs) were used to represent various beam data including percentage depth dose (PDD) and profiles of 6 MV beams with and without flattening filter. Prior knowledge of the beam data was embedded into the MLP network by learning the NeRP of a vendor-provided "golden" beam dataset. The prior-embedded network was then trained to fit clinical beam data collected at one field size and used to predict beam data at other field sizes. We evaluated the prediction accuracy by comparing network-predicted beam data to water tank measurements collected from 14 clinical Linacs. Beam datasets with intentionally introduced errors were used to investigate the potential use of the NeRP model for beam data verification, by evaluating the model performance when trained with erroneous beam data samples. Linac beam data predicted by the model agreed well with water tank measurements, with averaged Gamma passing rates (1%/1 mm passing criteria) higher than 95% and averaged mean absolute errors less than 0.6%. Beam data samples with measurement errors were revealed by inconsistent beam predictions between networks trained with correct versus erroneous data samples, characterized by a Gamma passing rate lower than 90%. A NeRP beam data modeling technique has been established for predicting beam characteristics from sparse measurements. The model provides a valuable tool to verify beam data collection accuracy and promises to simplify commissioning/QA processes by reducing the number of measurements without compromising the quality of medical physics service.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Linear accelerator (Linac) beam data commissioning and quality assurance (QA) play a vital role in accurate radiation treatment delivery and entail a large number of measurements using a variety of field sizes. How to optimize the effort in data acquisition while maintaining high quality of medical physics practice has been sought after.
PURPOSE OBJECTIVE
We propose to model Linac beam data through implicit neural representation (NeRP) learning. The potential of the beam model in predicting beam data from sparse measurements and detecting data collection errors was evaluated, with the goal of using the beam model to verify beam data collection accuracy and simplify the commissioning and QA process.
MATERIALS AND METHODS METHODS
NeRP models with continuous and differentiable functions parameterized by multilayer perceptrons (MLPs) were used to represent various beam data including percentage depth dose (PDD) and profiles of 6 MV beams with and without flattening filter. Prior knowledge of the beam data was embedded into the MLP network by learning the NeRP of a vendor-provided "golden" beam dataset. The prior-embedded network was then trained to fit clinical beam data collected at one field size and used to predict beam data at other field sizes. We evaluated the prediction accuracy by comparing network-predicted beam data to water tank measurements collected from 14 clinical Linacs. Beam datasets with intentionally introduced errors were used to investigate the potential use of the NeRP model for beam data verification, by evaluating the model performance when trained with erroneous beam data samples.
RESULTS RESULTS
Linac beam data predicted by the model agreed well with water tank measurements, with averaged Gamma passing rates (1%/1 mm passing criteria) higher than 95% and averaged mean absolute errors less than 0.6%. Beam data samples with measurement errors were revealed by inconsistent beam predictions between networks trained with correct versus erroneous data samples, characterized by a Gamma passing rate lower than 90%.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
A NeRP beam data modeling technique has been established for predicting beam characteristics from sparse measurements. The model provides a valuable tool to verify beam data collection accuracy and promises to simplify commissioning/QA processes by reducing the number of measurements without compromising the quality of medical physics service.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36621812
doi: 10.1002/mp.16212
pmc: PMC10175132
mid: NIHMS1863641
doi:

Substances chimiques

Water 059QF0KO0R

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

3137-3147

Subventions

Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA223667
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA227713
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : 1R01CA223667
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA176553
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : 1R01CA227713
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : 1R01CA176553
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA256890
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

© 2023 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Références

Phys Med Biol. 2021 Sep 03;66(17):
pubmed: 34412047
Med Phys. 2017 Feb;44(2):547-557
pubmed: 28205307
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019 Oct 1;105(2):432-439
pubmed: 31201892
Med Phys. 2008 Sep;35(9):4186-215
pubmed: 18841871
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016 Jan 08;17(1):179-191
pubmed: 26894351
Med Phys. 2012 Feb;39(2):569-72
pubmed: 22320765
Radiother Oncol. 2020 Dec;153:122-129
pubmed: 33039427
Phys Med Biol. 2022 Jun 13;67(12):
pubmed: 35477171
Front Artif Intell. 2020 Sep 29;3:577620
pubmed: 33733216
Med Phys. 2019 Oct;46(10):4304-4313
pubmed: 31310678
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013 Jan 07;14(1):4077
pubmed: 23318395
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015 Sep 08;16(5):14–34
pubmed: 26699330
Med Phys. 2022 Sep;49(9):6110-6119
pubmed: 35766221
IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst. 2022 Jun 03;PP:
pubmed: 35657845
Science. 2018 Jun 15;360(6394):1204-1210
pubmed: 29903970
Med Phys. 2016 Jul;43(7):4323
pubmed: 27370147
Med Phys. 1998 May;25(5):656-61
pubmed: 9608475
Radiother Oncol. 2020 Apr;145:186-192
pubmed: 32044531
Med Phys. 2007 Jul;34(7):2917-27
pubmed: 17822000
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71(1 Suppl):S71-5
pubmed: 18406942
Med Phys. 2009 Sep;36(9):4197-212
pubmed: 19810494
Phys Med Biol. 2020 Sep 30;65(19):195007
pubmed: 32604082
Nat Biomed Eng. 2019 Nov;3(11):880-888
pubmed: 31659306
Radiother Oncol. 2001 Aug;60(2):191-201
pubmed: 11439214

Auteurs

Lianli Liu (L)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA.

Liyue Shen (L)

Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA.

Yong Yang (Y)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA.

Emil Schüler (E)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA.

Wei Zhao (W)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA.

Gordon Wetzstein (G)

Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA.

Lei Xing (L)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA.
Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA.

Articles similaires

Animals Dietary Fiber Dextran Sulfate Mice Disease Models, Animal
Silicon Dioxide Water Hot Temperature Compressive Strength X-Ray Diffraction
1.00
Oryza Agricultural Irrigation Potassium Sodium Soil
Humans Female Precision Medicine Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted Breast Neoplasms

Classifications MeSH