Deep learning-based tools to distinguish plan-specific from generic deviations in EPID-based in vivo dosimetry.

AI EPID dosimetry QA convolutional neural networks in vivo

Journal

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

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
19 Dec 2023
Historique:
revised: 24 11 2023
received: 17 07 2023
accepted: 01 12 2023
medline: 19 12 2023
pubmed: 19 12 2023
entrez: 19 12 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Dose distributions calculated with electronic portal imaging device (EPID)-based in vivo dosimetry (EIVD) differ from planned dose distributions due to generic and plan-specific deviations. Generic deviations are characteristic to a class of plans. Examples include limitations in EIVD dose reconstruction, inaccuracies in treatment planning system (TPS) calculations and systematic machine deviations. Plan-specific deviations have an unpredictable character. Examples include discrepancies between the patient model used for dose calculation and the patient position or anatomy during delivery, random machine deviations, and data transfer, human or software errors. During the inspection work performed with traditional γ-evaluation statistical methods: (i) generic deviations raise alerts that need to be inspected but that rarely lead to action as their root cause is usually understood and (ii) the detection of relevant plan-specific deviations may be hindered by the presence of generic deviations. To investigate whether deep learning-based tools can help in identifying γ-alerts raised by generic deviations and in improving the detectability of plan-specific deviations. A 3D U-Net was trained as an autoencoder to reconstruct underlying patterns of generic deviations in γ-distributions. The network was trained for four treatment disease sites differently affected by generic deviations: volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) lung (no known deviations), VMAT prostate (TPS inaccuracies), VMAT head-and-neck (EIVD limitations) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) breast (large EIVD limitations). The network was trained with virtual non-transit γ-distributions: 60 train/10 validation for the VMAT sites and 30 train/10 validation for IMRT breast. It was hypothesized that in vivo γ-distributions obtained in the presence of plan-specific deviations would differ from those seen during training. For each disease site, the sensitivity of γ-analysis and the network to detect (synthetically introduced) patient-related deviations was compared by receiver operator characteristic analysis. The investigated deviations were patient positioning errors, weight gain or loss, and tumor volume changes. The clinical relevance was illustrated qualitatively with 793 in vivo clinical cases (141 lung, 136 head-and-neck, 209 prostate and 307 breast). Error detectability of patient-related deviations was better with the network than with γ-analysis. The average area under the curve values over all sites were 0.86 ± 0.12(1SD) and 0.69 ± 0.25(1SD), respectively. Regarding in vivo clinical results, the percentage of cases differently classified by γ-analysis and the network was 1%, 19%, 18% and 64% for lung, head-and-neck, prostate, and breast, respectively. In head-and-neck and breast cases, 45 γ-only alerts were examined, of which 43 were attributed to EPID dose reconstruction limitations. For prostate, all 15 investigated γ-only alerts were due to known TPS inaccuracies. All 59 investigated network alerts were explained by either patient-related deviations or EPID acquisition incidents. Some patient-related deviations detected by the network were not detected by γ-analysis. Deep learning-based tools trained to reconstruct underlying patterns of generic deviations in γ-distributions can be used to (i) automatically identify false positives within the set of γ-alerts and (ii) improve the detection of plan-specific deviations, hence minimizing the likelihood of false negatives. The presented method provides clear additional value to the γ-alert management process for large scale EIVD systems.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Dose distributions calculated with electronic portal imaging device (EPID)-based in vivo dosimetry (EIVD) differ from planned dose distributions due to generic and plan-specific deviations. Generic deviations are characteristic to a class of plans. Examples include limitations in EIVD dose reconstruction, inaccuracies in treatment planning system (TPS) calculations and systematic machine deviations. Plan-specific deviations have an unpredictable character. Examples include discrepancies between the patient model used for dose calculation and the patient position or anatomy during delivery, random machine deviations, and data transfer, human or software errors. During the inspection work performed with traditional γ-evaluation statistical methods: (i) generic deviations raise alerts that need to be inspected but that rarely lead to action as their root cause is usually understood and (ii) the detection of relevant plan-specific deviations may be hindered by the presence of generic deviations.
PURPOSE OBJECTIVE
To investigate whether deep learning-based tools can help in identifying γ-alerts raised by generic deviations and in improving the detectability of plan-specific deviations.
METHODS METHODS
A 3D U-Net was trained as an autoencoder to reconstruct underlying patterns of generic deviations in γ-distributions. The network was trained for four treatment disease sites differently affected by generic deviations: volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) lung (no known deviations), VMAT prostate (TPS inaccuracies), VMAT head-and-neck (EIVD limitations) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) breast (large EIVD limitations). The network was trained with virtual non-transit γ-distributions: 60 train/10 validation for the VMAT sites and 30 train/10 validation for IMRT breast. It was hypothesized that in vivo γ-distributions obtained in the presence of plan-specific deviations would differ from those seen during training. For each disease site, the sensitivity of γ-analysis and the network to detect (synthetically introduced) patient-related deviations was compared by receiver operator characteristic analysis. The investigated deviations were patient positioning errors, weight gain or loss, and tumor volume changes. The clinical relevance was illustrated qualitatively with 793 in vivo clinical cases (141 lung, 136 head-and-neck, 209 prostate and 307 breast).
RESULTS RESULTS
Error detectability of patient-related deviations was better with the network than with γ-analysis. The average area under the curve values over all sites were 0.86 ± 0.12(1SD) and 0.69 ± 0.25(1SD), respectively. Regarding in vivo clinical results, the percentage of cases differently classified by γ-analysis and the network was 1%, 19%, 18% and 64% for lung, head-and-neck, prostate, and breast, respectively. In head-and-neck and breast cases, 45 γ-only alerts were examined, of which 43 were attributed to EPID dose reconstruction limitations. For prostate, all 15 investigated γ-only alerts were due to known TPS inaccuracies. All 59 investigated network alerts were explained by either patient-related deviations or EPID acquisition incidents. Some patient-related deviations detected by the network were not detected by γ-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Deep learning-based tools trained to reconstruct underlying patterns of generic deviations in γ-distributions can be used to (i) automatically identify false positives within the set of γ-alerts and (ii) improve the detection of plan-specific deviations, hence minimizing the likelihood of false negatives. The presented method provides clear additional value to the γ-alert management process for large scale EIVD systems.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38112213
doi: 10.1002/mp.16895
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

© 2023 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Références

Gershkevitsh E, Schmidt R, Velez G, et al. Dosimetric verification of radiotherapy treatment planning systems: results of IAEA pilot study. Radiother Oncol. 2008;89(3):338-346. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2008.07.007
Kerns JR, Stingo F, Followill DS, Howell RM, Melancon A, Kry SF. Treatment planning system calculation errors are present in most imaging and radiation oncology core-houston phantom failures. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;98(5):1197-1203. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.03.049
Glenn MC, Brooks FE, Peterson CB, et al. Photon beam modeling variations predict errors in IMRT dosimetry audits. Radiother Oncol. 2022;166:8-14. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2021.10.021
O'Daniel JC, Yin FF. Quantitative approach to failure mode and effect analysis for linear accelerator quality assurance. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;98(1):56-62. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.01.035
Bossuyt E, Weytjens R, Nevens D, De Vos S, Verellen D. Evaluation of automated pre-treatment and transit in-vivo dosimetry in radiotherapy using empirically determined parameters. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2020;16:113-129. doi:10.1016/j.phro.2020.09.011
Olaciregui-Ruiz I, Beddar S, Greer P, et al. In vivo dosimetry in external beam photon radiotherapy: requirements and future directions for research, development, and clinical practice. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2020;15:108-116. doi:10.1016/j.phro.2020.08.003
Van Uytven E, Van Beek T, McCowan PM, Chytyk-Praznik K, Greer PB, McCurdy BMC. Validation of a method for in vivo 3D dose reconstruction for IMRT and VMAT treatments using on-treatment EPID images and a model-based forward-calculation algorithm. Med Phys. 2015;42(12):6945-6954. doi:10.1118/1.4935199
Wendling M, McDermott LN, Mans A, Sonke J-J, van Herk M, Mijnheer BJ. A simple backprojection algorithm for 3D in vivo EPID dosimetry of IMRT treatments. Med Phys. 2009;36(7):3310. doi:10.1118/1.3148482
Mans A, Remeijer P, Olaciregui-Ruiz I, et al. 3D dosimetric verification of volumetric-modulated arc therapy by portal dosimetry. Radiother Oncol. 2010;94(2):181-187. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2009.12.020
Nailon WH, Welsh D, McDonald K, et al. EPID-based in vivo dosimetry using dosimetry check: overview and clinical experience in a 5-yr study including breast, lung, prostate, and head and neck cancer patients. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019;20(1):6-16. doi:10.1002/acm2.12441
Greer PB. Correction of pixel sensitivity variation and off-axis response for amorphous silicon EPID dosimetry. Med Phys. 2005;32(12):3558. doi:10.1118/1.2128498
McDermott LN, Louwe RJW, Sonke J-J, van Herk MB, Mijnheer BJ. Dose-response and ghosting effects of an amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device. Med Phys. 2004;31(2):285. doi:10.1118/1.1637969
Kirkby C, Sloboda R. Consequences of the spectral response of an a-Si EPID and implications for dosimetric calibration. Med Phys. 2005;32(8):2649-2658. doi:10.1118/1.1984335
Deshpande S, Xing A, Holloway L, Metcalfe P, Vial P. Dose calibration of EPIDs for segmented IMRT dosimetry. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014;15(6):103-118. doi:10.1120/jacmp.v15i6.4895
Mijnheer BJ, González P, Olaciregui-Ruiz I, Rozendaal RA, van Herk M, Mans A. Overview of 3-year experience with large-scale electronic portal imaging device-based 3-dimensional transit dosimetry. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2015;5(6):e679-87. doi:10.1016/j.prro.2015.07.001
Çiçek Ö, Abdulkadir A, Lienkamp SS, Brox T, Ronneberger O. 3D U-net: learning dense volumetric segmentation from sparse annotation. Lect Notes Comput Sci (including Subser Lect Notes Artif Intell Lect Notes Bioinformatics). 2016:424-432. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-46723-8_49. 9901 LNCS
Wendling M, McDermott LN, Mans A, et al. In aqua vivo EPID dosimetry. Med Phys. 2012;39(1):367-377. doi:10.1118/1.3665709
Olaciregui-Ruiz I, Rozendaal R, van Oers RFM, Mijnheer B, Mans A. Virtual patient 3D dose reconstruction using in air EPID measurements and a back-projection algorithm for IMRT and VMAT treatments. Phys Medica. 2017;37:49-57. doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.04.016
Smith K, Balter P, Duhon J, et al. AAPM medical physics practice guideline 8.a.: linear accelerator performance tests. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017;18(4):23-39. doi:10.1002/acm2.12080
Olaciregui-Ruiz I, Rozendaal R, van Kranen S, Mijnheer B, Mans A. The effect of the choice of patient model on the performance of in vivo 3D EPID dosimetry to detect variations in patient position and anatomy. Med Phys. 2020;47(1):171-180. doi:10.1002/mp.13893
Olaciregui-Ruiz I, Vivas-Maiques B, Kaas J, et al. Transit and non-transit 3D EPID dosimetry versus detector arrays for patient specific QA. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019;20(6):79-90. doi:10.1002/acm2.12610
Wendling M, Zijp LJ, McDermott LN, et al. A fast algorithm for gamma evaluation in 3D. Med Phys. 2007;34(5):1647-1654. doi:10.1118/1.2721657
Siddon RL. Solution to treatment planning problems using coordinate transformations. Med Phys. 1981;8(6):766-774. doi:10.1118/1.594853
Ronneberger O, Fischer P, Brox T. U-net: convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. Lect Notes Comput Sci (including Subser Lect Notes Artif Intell Lect Notes Bioinformatics). 2015;9351:234-241. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24574-4_28
Hyun CM, Kim HP, Lee SM, Lee S, Seo JK. Deep learning for undersampled MRI reconstruction. Phys Med Biol. 2018;63(13):135007. doi:10.1088/1361-6560/aac71a
Qiang Y, Fei S, Jiao Y, Li L. Anomaly detection of predicted frames based on U-net feature vector reconstruction. J Phys Conf Ser. 2020;1627(1). doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1627/1/012014
Kingma DP, Adam BaJ A method for stochastic optimization. http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6980
Olaciregui-Ruiz I, Rozendaal R, Mijnheer B, Mans A. Site-specific alert criteria to detect patient-related errors with 3D EPID transit dosimetry. Med Phys. 2018. doi:10.1002/mp.13265. Published online.
Chytyk-Praznik K, Vanuytven E, Vanbeek TA, Greer PB, McCurdy BMC. Model-based prediction of portal dose images during patient treatment. Med Phys. 2013;40(3):031713. doi:10.1118/1.4792203
Bedford JL, Hanson IM, Hansen VN. Portal dosimetry for VMAT using integrated images obtained during treatment. Med Phys. 2014;41(2):021725. doi:10.1118/1.4862515
Wootton LS, Nyflot MJ, Chaovalitwongse WA, Ford E. Error detection in intensity-modulated radiation therapy quality assurance using radiomic analysis of gamma distributions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;102(1):219-228. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.05.033
Zhang X, Dai G, Zhong R, et al. Radiomics analysis of EPID measurements for patient positioning error detection in thyroid associated ophthalmopathy radiotherapy. Phys Medica. 2021;90:1-5. doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.08.014
Nyflot MJ, Thammasorn P, Wootton LS, Ford EC, Chaovalitwongse WA. Deep learning for patient-specific quality assurance: identifying errors in radiotherapy delivery by radiomic analysis of gamma images with convolutional neural networks. Med Phys. 2019;46(2):456-464. doi:10.1002/mp.13338
Potter NK, Mund K, Andreozzi JM, Li JG, Liu C, Yan G. Error detection and classification in patient-specific IMRT QA with dual neural networks. Med Phys. 2020;47(10):4711-4720. doi:10.1002/mp.14416
Kimura Y, Kadoya N, Oku Y, Kajikawa T, Tomori S, Jingu K. Error detection model developed using a multi-task convolutional neural network in patient-specific quality assurance for volumetric-modulated arc therapy. Med Phys. 2021;48(9):4769-4783. doi:10.1002/mp.15031
Bedford JL, Hanson IM. A recurrent neural network for rapid detection of delivery errors during real-time portal dosimetry. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2022;22:36-43. doi:10.1016/j.phro.2022.03.004
Wolfs CJA, Canters RAM, Verhaegen F. Identification of treatment error types for lung cancer patients using convolutional neural networks and EPID dosimetry. Radiother Oncol. 2020;153:243-249. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2020.09.048
Shvetsova N, Bakker B, Fedulova I, Schulz H, Dylov DV. Anomaly detection in medical imaging with deep perceptual autoencoders. IEEE Access. 2021;9:118571-118583. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3107163
Fernando T, Gammulle H, Denman S, Sridharan S, Fookes C, Deep learning for medical anomaly detection a survey. http://arxiv.org/abs/2012.02364
Kumar V, Nandi GC, Kala R. Static hand gesture recognition using stacked denoising sparse autoencoders. IEEE. 2014:99-104. doi:10.1109/IC3.2014.6897155
Kingma DP, Welling M, Auto-encoding variational bayes. http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6114
Di Mattia F, Galeone P, De Simoni M, Ghelfi E, A survey on GANs for anomaly detection. http://arxiv.org/abs/1906.11632
Zhao H, Gallo O, Frosio I, Kautz J, Loss functions for neural networks for image processing. http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.08861
Olaciregui-Ruiz I, Torres-Xirau I, Teuwen J, van der Heide UA, Mans A. A deep learning-based correction to EPID dosimetry for attenuation and scatter in the unity MR-Linac system. Phys Medica. 2020;71:124-131. doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.02.020

Auteurs

Igor Olaciregui-Ruiz (I)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Rita Simões (R)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Sonke Jan-Jakob (S)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Classifications MeSH