Beam mask and sliding window-facilitated deep learning-based accurate and efficient dose prediction for pencil beam scanning proton therapy.
Journal
Medical physics
ISSN: 2473-4209
Titre abrégé: Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425746
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Sep 2023
25 Sep 2023
Historique:
revised:
28
08
2023
received:
18
06
2023
accepted:
11
09
2023
medline:
25
9
2023
pubmed:
25
9
2023
entrez:
25
9
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Accurate and efficient dose calculation is essential for on-line adaptive planning in proton therapy. Deep learning (DL) has shown promising dose prediction results in photon therapy. However, there is a scarcity of DL-based dose prediction methods specifically designed for proton therapy. Successful dose prediction method for proton therapy should account for more challenging dose prediction problems in pencil beam scanning proton therapy (PBSPT) due to its sensitivity to heterogeneities. To develop a DL-based PBSPT dose prediction workflow with high accuracy and balanced complexity to support on-line adaptive proton therapy clinical decision and subsequent replanning. PBSPT plans of 103 prostate cancer patients (93 for training and the other 10 for independent testing) and 83 lung cancer patients (73 for training and the other 10 for independent testing) previously treated at our institution were included in the study, each with computed tomography scans (CTs), structure sets, and plan doses calculated by the in-house developed Monte-Carlo dose engine (considered as the ground truth in the model training and testing). For the ablation study, we designed three experiments corresponding to the following three methods: (1) Experiment 1, the conventional region of interest (ROI) (composed of targets and organs-at-risk [OARs]) method. (2) Experiment 2, the beam mask (generated by raytracing of proton beams) method to improve proton dose prediction. (3) Experiment 3, the sliding window method for the model to focus on local details to further improve proton dose prediction. A fully connected 3D-Unet was adopted as the backbone. Dose volume histogram (DVH) indices, 3D Gamma passing rates with a criterion of 3%/3 mm/10%, and dice coefficients for the structures enclosed by the iso-dose lines between the predicted and the ground truth doses were used as the evaluation metrics. The calculation time for each proton dose prediction was recorded to evaluate the method's efficiency. Compared to the conventional ROI method, the beam mask method improved the agreement of DVH indices for both targets and OARs and the sliding window method further improved the agreement of the DVH indices (for lung cancer, CTV D98 absolute deviation: 0.74 ± 0.18 vs. 0.57 ± 0.21 vs. 0.54 ± 0.15 Gy[RBE], ROI vs. beam mask vs. sliding window methods, respectively). For the 3D Gamma passing rates in the target, OARs, and BODY (outside target and OARs), the beam mask method improved the passing rates in these regions and the sliding window method further improved them (for prostate cancer, targets: 96.93% ± 0.53% vs. 98.88% ± 0.49% vs. 99.97% ± 0.07%, BODY: 86.88% ± 0.74% vs. 93.21% ± 0.56% vs. 95.17% ± 0.59%). A similar trend was also observed for the dice coefficients. This trend was especially remarkable for relatively low prescription isodose lines (for lung cancer, 10% isodose line dice: 0.871 ± 0.027 vs. 0.911 ± 0.023 vs. 0.927 ± 0.017). The dose predictions for all the testing cases were completed within 0.25 s. An accurate and efficient deep learning-augmented proton dose prediction framework has been developed for PBSPT, which can predict accurate dose distributions not only inside but also outside ROI efficiently. The framework can potentially further reduce the initial planning and adaptive replanning workload in PBSPT.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Accurate and efficient dose calculation is essential for on-line adaptive planning in proton therapy. Deep learning (DL) has shown promising dose prediction results in photon therapy. However, there is a scarcity of DL-based dose prediction methods specifically designed for proton therapy. Successful dose prediction method for proton therapy should account for more challenging dose prediction problems in pencil beam scanning proton therapy (PBSPT) due to its sensitivity to heterogeneities.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To develop a DL-based PBSPT dose prediction workflow with high accuracy and balanced complexity to support on-line adaptive proton therapy clinical decision and subsequent replanning.
METHODS
METHODS
PBSPT plans of 103 prostate cancer patients (93 for training and the other 10 for independent testing) and 83 lung cancer patients (73 for training and the other 10 for independent testing) previously treated at our institution were included in the study, each with computed tomography scans (CTs), structure sets, and plan doses calculated by the in-house developed Monte-Carlo dose engine (considered as the ground truth in the model training and testing). For the ablation study, we designed three experiments corresponding to the following three methods: (1) Experiment 1, the conventional region of interest (ROI) (composed of targets and organs-at-risk [OARs]) method. (2) Experiment 2, the beam mask (generated by raytracing of proton beams) method to improve proton dose prediction. (3) Experiment 3, the sliding window method for the model to focus on local details to further improve proton dose prediction. A fully connected 3D-Unet was adopted as the backbone. Dose volume histogram (DVH) indices, 3D Gamma passing rates with a criterion of 3%/3 mm/10%, and dice coefficients for the structures enclosed by the iso-dose lines between the predicted and the ground truth doses were used as the evaluation metrics. The calculation time for each proton dose prediction was recorded to evaluate the method's efficiency.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Compared to the conventional ROI method, the beam mask method improved the agreement of DVH indices for both targets and OARs and the sliding window method further improved the agreement of the DVH indices (for lung cancer, CTV D98 absolute deviation: 0.74 ± 0.18 vs. 0.57 ± 0.21 vs. 0.54 ± 0.15 Gy[RBE], ROI vs. beam mask vs. sliding window methods, respectively). For the 3D Gamma passing rates in the target, OARs, and BODY (outside target and OARs), the beam mask method improved the passing rates in these regions and the sliding window method further improved them (for prostate cancer, targets: 96.93% ± 0.53% vs. 98.88% ± 0.49% vs. 99.97% ± 0.07%, BODY: 86.88% ± 0.74% vs. 93.21% ± 0.56% vs. 95.17% ± 0.59%). A similar trend was also observed for the dice coefficients. This trend was especially remarkable for relatively low prescription isodose lines (for lung cancer, 10% isodose line dice: 0.871 ± 0.027 vs. 0.911 ± 0.023 vs. 0.927 ± 0.017). The dose predictions for all the testing cases were completed within 0.25 s.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
An accurate and efficient deep learning-augmented proton dose prediction framework has been developed for PBSPT, which can predict accurate dose distributions not only inside but also outside ROI efficiently. The framework can potentially further reduce the initial planning and adaptive replanning workload in PBSPT.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : National Cancer Institute (NCI) Career Developmental
ID : K25CA168984
Organisme : Arizona Biomedical Research Commission Investigator Award
Organisme : the Lawrence W. and Marilyn W. Matteson Fund for Cancer Research
Organisme : the Kemper Marley Foundation
Organisme : the Fred C. and Katherine B. Anderson Foundation Translational Cancer Research Award
Commentaires et corrections
Type : UpdateOf
Informations de copyright
© 2023 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Kooy HM, Clasie BM, Lu HM, et al. A case study in proton pencil-beam scanning delivery [published online ahead of print 2010/02/02]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76(2):624-630.
Schild SE, Rule WG, Ashman JB, et al. Proton beam therapy for locally advanced lung cancer: a review. World J Clin Oncol. 2014;5(4):568-575.
Yu NY, DeWees TA, Liu C, et al. Early outcomes of patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with intensity-modulated proton therapy versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy: the mayo clinic experience. Adv Radiat Oncol. doi:10.1016/j.adro.2019.08.001
Yu NY, DeWees TA, Voss MM, et al. Cardiopulmonary toxicity following intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for stage III non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer. 2022;23(8):e526-e535.
Bhangoo RS, DeWees TA, Yu NY, et al. Acute toxicities and short-term patient outcomes after intensity-modulated proton beam radiation therapy or intensity-modulated photon radiation therapy for esophageal carcinoma: a mayo clinic experience. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2020;5(5):871-879.
Frank SJ, Cox JD, Gillin M, et al. Multifield optimization intensity modulated proton therapy for head and neck tumors: a translation to practice. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;89(4):846-853.
Chang JY, Zhang X, Knopf A, et al. Consensus guidelines for implementing pencil-beam scanning proton therapy for thoracic malignancies on behalf of the PTCOG thoracic and lymphoma subcommittee. IJROBP. 2017;99(1):41-50.
Bhangoo RS, Mullikin TC, Ashman JB, et al. Intensity modulated proton therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: initial clinical experience. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2021;6(4):100675.
Zeng J, Badiyan SN, Garces YI, et al. Consensus statement on proton therapy in mesothelioma. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2021;11(2):119-133.
Liu C, Bhangoo RS, Sio TT, et al. Dosimetric comparison of distal esophageal carcinoma plans for patients treated with small-spot intensity-modulated proton versus volumetric-modulated arc therapies [published online ahead of print 2019/05/22]. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019;20(7):15-27.
Liu C, Sio TT, Deng W, et al. Small-spot intensity-modulated proton therapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapies for patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a dosimetric comparative study [published online ahead of print 2018/10/18]. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018;19(6):140-148.
Chuong MD, Hallemeier CL, Li H, et al. Executive summary of clinical and technical guidelines for esophageal cancer proton beam therapy from the particle therapy co-operative group thoracic and gastrointestinal subcommittees. Front Oncol. 2021:11.
Chiang JS, Yu NY, Daniels TB, Liu W, Schild SE, Sio TT. Proton beam radiotherapy for patients with early-stage and advanced lung cancer: a narrative review with contemporary clinical recommendations. J Thorac Dis. 2021;13(2):1270-1285.
Paganetti H. Range uncertainties in proton therapy and the role of Monte Carlo simulations [published online ahead of print 2012/05/11]. Phys Med Biol. 2012;57(11):R99-117.
Liu W. Robustness quantification and robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy. In: Rath A, Sahoo N, eds. Particle Radiotherapy: Emerging Technology for Treatment of Cancer. Springer; 2015:139-155.
Liu W, Patel SH, Shen JJ, et al. Robustness quantification methods comparison in volumetric modulated arc therapy to treat head and neck cancer. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2016;6(6):E269-E275.
Lomax AJ. Intensity modulated proton therapy and its sensitivity to treatment uncertainties 1: the potential effects of calculational uncertainties. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53(4):1027-1042.
Lomax AJ. Intensity modulated proton therapy and its sensitivity to treatment uncertainties 2: the potential effects of inter-fraction and inter-field motions. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53(4):1043-1056.
Quan M, Liu W, Wu R, et al. Preliminary evaluation of multi-field and single-field optimization for the treatment planning of spot-scanning proton therapy of head and neck cancer. Med Phys. 2013;40:081709.
Shan J, Yang Y, Schild SE, et al. Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) interplay effect evaluation of asymmetric breathing with simultaneous uncertainty considerations in patients with non-small cell lung cancer [published online ahead of print 2020/09/24]. Med Phys. 2020;47(11):5428-5440.
Matney J, Park PC, Bluett J, et al. Effects of respiratory motion on passively scattered proton therapy versus intensity modulated photon therapy for stage III lung cancer: are proton plans more sensitive to breathing motion? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;87(3):576-582.
Matney JE, Park PC, Li H, et al. Perturbation of water-equivalent thickness as a surrogate for respiratory motion in proton therapy [published online ahead of print 2016/04/14]. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016;17(2):5795.
Placidi L, Bolsi A, Lomax AJ, et al. Effect of anatomic changes on pencil beam scanned proton dose distributions for cranial and extracranial tumors [published online ahead of print 2016/12/25]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;97(3):616-623.
Li H, Zhang X, Park P, et al. Robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy to account for anatomy changes in lung cancer patients. Radiother Oncol. 2015;114(3):367-372.
Feng H, Patel SH, Wong WW, et al. GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo-based online adaptive proton therapy: a feasibility study. Med Phys. 2022;49(6):3550-3563.
Liu W. Inventor. System and method for robust intensity-modulated proton therapy planning. 2014.
Tryggestad EJ, Liu W, Pepin MD, Hallemeier CL, Sio TT. Managing treatment-related uncertainties in proton beam radiotherapy for gastrointestinal cancers. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2020;11(1):212-224.
Zaghian M, Cao W, Liu W, et al. Comparison of linear and nonlinear programming approaches for “worst case dose” and “minmax” robust optimization of intensity-modulated proton therapy dose distributions [published online ahead of print 2017/03/17]. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017;18(2):15-25.
Zaghian M, Lim G, Liu W, Mohan R. An automatic approach for satisfying dose-volume constraints in linear fluence map optimization for IMPT [published online ahead of print 2014/12/17]. J Cancer Ther. 2014;5(2):198-207.
Park PC, Cheung JP, Zhu XR, et al. Statistical assessment of proton treatment plans under setup and range uncertainties. IJROBP. 2013;86(5):1007-1013.
Liu W, Zhang X, Li Y, Mohan R. Robust optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy [published online ahead of print 2012/02/11]. Med Phys. 2012;39(2):1079-1091.
Liu W, Frank SJ, Li X, et al. Effectiveness of robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy planning for head and neck cancers [published online ahead of print 2013/05/03]. Med Phys. 2013;40(5):051711.
Li H, Zhang X, Park P, et al. Robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy to account for anatomy changes in lung cancer patients [published online ahead of print 2015/02/25]. Radiother Oncol. 2015;114(3):367-372.
Liu C, Patel SH, Shan J, et al. Robust optimization for intensity-modulated proton therapy to redistribute high linear energy transfer (LET) from nearby critical organs to tumors in head and neck cancer [published online ahead of print 2020/01/29]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020;107(1):181-193. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.01.013
Liu C, Yu NY, Shan J, et al. Technical Note: treatment planning system (TPS) approximations matter-comparing intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plan quality and robustness between a commercial and an in-house developed TPS for nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [published online ahead of print 2019/09/10]. Med Phys. 2019;46(11):4755-4762.
Liu CB, Schild SE, Chang JY, et al. Impact of spot size and spacing on the quality of robustly optimized intensity modulated proton therapy plans for lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;101(2):479-489.
Liu W, Frank SJ, Li X, Li Y, Zhu RX, Mohan R. PTV-based IMPT optimization incorporating planning risk volumes vs robust optimization. Med Phys. 2013;40(2):021709-021708.
Liu W, Li Y, Li X, Cao W, Zhang X. Influence of robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy with different dose delivery techniques. Med Phys. 2012:39.
Liu W, Liao Z, Schild SE, et al. Impact of respiratory motion on worst-case scenario optimized intensity modulated proton therapy for lung cancers. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2015;5(2):e77-86.
Liu W, Mohan R, Park P, et al. Dosimetric benefits of robust treatment planning for intensity modulated proton therapy for base-of-skull cancers. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2014;4:384-391.
Liu W, Patel SH, Harrington DP, et al. Exploratory study of the association of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan robustness with local failure in head and neck cancer [published online ahead of print 2017/05/16]. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017;18(4):76-83.
Liu W, Schild SE, Chang JY, et al. Exploratory study of 4D versus 3D robust optimization in intensity modulated proton therapy for lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;95(1):523-533.
Liu W, Zhang X, Li Y, Mohan R. Robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy. Med Phys. 2012;39:1079-1091.
An Y, Liang JM, Schild SE, Bues M, Liu W. Robust treatment planning with conditional value at risk chance constraints in intensity- modulated proton therapy. Med Phys. 2017;44(1):28-36.
An Y, Shan J, Patel SH, et al. Robust intensity-modulated proton therapy to reduce high linear energy transfer in organs at risk. Med Phys. 2017;44(12):6138-6147.
Feng H, Shan J, Anderson JD, et al. Per-voxel constraints to minimize hot spots in linear energy transfer (LET)-guided robust optimization for base of skull head and neck cancer patients in IMPT. Med Phys. 2021;49(1):632-647.
Feng H, Shan J, Ashman JB, et al. Technical Note: 4D robust optimization in small spot intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for distal esophageal carcinoma [published online ahead of print 2021/06/01]. Med Phys. 2021;48(8):4636-4647. doi:10.1002/mp.15003
Feng H, Sio TT, Rule WG, et al. Beam angle comparison for distal esophageal carcinoma patients treated with intensity-modulated proton therapy [published online ahead of print 2020/10/16]. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020;21(11):141-152.
Shan J, Sio TT, Liu C, Schild SE, Bues M, Liu W. A novel and individualized robust optimization method using normalized dose interval volume constraints (NDIVC) for intensity-modulated proton radiotherapy [published online ahead of print 2018/11/06]. Med Phys. 2018;46(1):382-393. doi:10.1002/mp.13276
Shan J, An Y, Bues M, Schild SE, Liu W. Robust optimization in IMPT using quadratic objective functions to account for the minimum MU constraint. Med Phys. 2018;45(1):460-469.
Yan D, Vicini F, Wong J, Martinez A. Adaptive radiation therapy [published online ahead of print 1997/01/01]. Phys Med Biol. 1997;42(1):123-132.
Ding Y, Feng H, Yang Y, et al. Deep-learning based fast and accurate 3D CT deformable image registration in lung cancer [published online ahead of print 20230608]. Med Phys. 2023. doi:10.1002/mp.16548
Wu QJ, Li T, Wu Q, Yin FF. Adaptive radiation therapy: technical components and clinical applications [published online ahead of print 2011/05/26]. Cancer journal (Sudbury, Mass). 2011;17(3):182-189.
Sonke JJ, Aznar M, Rasch C. Adaptive radiotherapy for anatomical changes [published online ahead of print 2019/04/28]. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2019;29(3):245-257.
Wu C, Jeraj R, Olivera GH, Mackie TR. Re-optimization in adaptive radiotherapy [published online ahead of print 2002/10/04]. Phys Med Biol. 2002;47(17):3181-3195.
Paganetti H, Botas P, Sharp GC, Winey B. Adaptive proton therapy [published online ahead of print 2021/10/29]. Phys Med Biol. 2021;66(22).
Simone CB, 2nd, Ly D, Dan TD, et al. Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy, adaptive radiotherapy, proton radiotherapy, and adaptive proton radiotherapy for treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer [published online ahead of print 2011/06/15]. Radiother Oncol. 2011;101(3):376-382.
Lim-Reinders S, Keller BM, Al-Ward S, Sahgal A, Kim A. Online adaptive radiation therapy [published online ahead of print 2017/09/17]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;99(4):994-1003.
Rigaud B, Anderson BM, Yu ZH, et al. Automatic segmentation using deep learning to enable online dose optimization during adaptive radiation therapy of cervical cancer [published online ahead of print 2020/11/13]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021;109(4):1096-1110.
Feng H, Patel SH, Wong WW, et al. GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo-based online adaptive proton therapy: a feasibility study [published online ahead of print 2022/04/21]. Med Phys. 2022;49(6):3550-3563.
Wang M, Zhang Q, Lam S, Cai J, Yang R. A review on application of deep learning algorithms in external beam radiotherapy automated treatment planning [published online ahead of print 2020/11/17]. Front Oncol. 2020;10:580919.
Chen X, Men K, Li Y, Yi J, Dai J. A feasibility study on an automated method to generate patient-specific dose distributions for radiotherapy using deep learning [published online ahead of print 2018/10/28]. Med Phys. 2019;46(1):56-64.
Nguyen D, Jia X, Sher D, et al. 3D radiotherapy dose prediction on head and neck cancer patients with a hierarchically densely connected U-net deep learning architecture [published online ahead of print 2019/02/01]. Phys Med Biol. 2019;64(6):065020.
Fan J, Wang J, Chen Z, Hu C, Zhang Z, Hu W. Automatic treatment planning based on three-dimensional dose distribution predicted from deep learning technique [published online ahead of print 2018/11/02]. Med Phys. 2019;46(1):370-381.
Nguyen D, Long T, Jia X, et al. A feasibility study for predicting optimal radiation therapy dose distributions of prostate cancer patients from patient anatomy using deep learning [published online ahead of print 2019/02/02]. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):1076.
Liu Z, Fan J, Li M, et al. A deep learning method for prediction of three-dimensional dose distribution of helical tomotherapy [published online ahead of print 2019/03/15]. Med Phys. 2019;46(5):1972-1983.
Wang W, Sheng Y, Palta M, et al. Deep learning-based fluence map prediction for pancreas stereotactic body radiation therapy with simultaneous integrated boost [published online ahead of print 2021/05/18]. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2021;6(4):100672.
Neishabouri A, Wahl N, Mairani A, Kothe U, Bangert M. Long short-term memory networks for proton dose calculation in highly heterogeneous tissues [published online ahead of print 2020/12/18]. Med Phys. 2021;48(4):1893-1908.
Zhang X, Hu Z, Zhang G, Zhuang Y, Wang Y, Peng H. Dose calculation in proton therapy using a discovery cross-domain generative adversarial network (DiscoGAN) [published online ahead of print 2021/02/18]. Med Phys. 2021;48(5):2646-2660.
Pastor-Serrano O, Perko Z. Millisecond speed deep learning based proton dose calculation with Monte Carloaccuracy. [published online ahead of print 2022/04/22]. Phys Med Biol. 2022;67(10):105006.
Wu C, Nguyen D, Xing Y, et al. Improving proton dose calculation accuracy by using deep learning [published online ahead of print 2021/03/01]. Mach Learn Sci Technol. 2021;2(1):015017.
Javaid U, Souris K, Huang S, Lee JA. Denoising proton therapy Monte Carlo dose distributions in multiple tumor sites: a comparative neural networks architecture study [published online ahead of print 2021/08/07]. Phys Med. 2021;89:93-103.
Guerreiro F, Seravalli E, Janssens GO, et al. Deep learning prediction of proton and photon dose distributions for paediatric abdominal tumours [published online ahead of print 2020/12/03]. Radiother Oncol. 2021;156:36-42.
Wang W, Chang Y, Liu Y, et al. Feasibility study of fast intensity-modulated proton therapy dose prediction method using deep neural networks for prostate cancer [published online ahead of print 2022/05/12]. Med Phys. 2022;49(8):5451-5463.
Borderias-Villarroel E, Huet Dastarac M, Barragan-Montero AM, et al. Machine learning-based automatic proton therapy planning: impact of post-processing and dose-mimicking in plan robustness [published online ahead of print 2023/04/09]. Med Phys. 2023;50(7):4480-4490. doi:10.1002/mp.16408
Peng Y, Liu Y, Chen Z, et al. Accuracy improvement method based on characteristic database classification for IMRT dose prediction in cervical cancer: scientifically training data selection [published online ahead of print 2022/03/22]. Front Oncol. 2022;12:808580.
Liu S, Zhang J, Li T, Yan H, Liu J. Technical note: a cascade 3D U-Net for dose prediction in radiotherapy [published online ahead of print 2021/06/09]. Med Phys. 2021;48(9):5574-5582.
Miften M, Olch A, Mihailidis D, et al. Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement-based verification QA: recommendations of AAPM Task Group No. 218 [published online ahead of print 2018/02/15]. Med Phys. 2018;45(4):e53-e83.
Valdes G, Simone CB, Chen J, et al. Clinical decision support of radiotherapy treatment planning: a data-driven machine learning strategy for patient-specific dosimetric decision making [published online ahead of print 2017/11/23]. Radiother Oncol. 2017;125(3):392-397.
Farr JB, Moyers MF, Allgower CE, et al. Clinical commissioning of intensity-modulated proton therapy systems: report of AAPM Task Group 185 [published online ahead of print 2020/10/21]. Med Phys. 2021;48(1):e1-e30.
Hernandez Morales D, Shan J, Liu W, et al. Automation of routine elements for spot-scanning proton patient-specific quality assurance [published online ahead of print 2018/10/20]. Med Phys. 2019;46(1):5-14.
Allred BC, Shan J, Robertson DG, et al. A method for quantitative evaluations of scanning-proton dose distributions [published online ahead of print 20210329]. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2021;22(4):193-201.