Forecasting model for qualitative prediction of the results of patient-specific quality assurance based on planning and complexity metrics and their interrelations. Pilot study.

PSQA complexity forecasting models machine learning plan metrics

Journal

Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology
ISSN: 1507-1367
Titre abrégé: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother
Pays: Poland
ID NLM: 100885761

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2024
Historique:
received: 26 02 2024
accepted: 31 05 2024
medline: 15 8 2024
pubmed: 15 8 2024
entrez: 15 8 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The purpose was to analyse the interrelations between planning and complexity metrics and gamma passing rates (GPRs) obtained from VMAT treatments and build the forecasting models for qualitative prediction (QD) of GPRs results. 802 treatment arcs from the plans prepared for the head and neck, thorax, abdomen, and pelvic cancers were analysed. The plans were verified by portal dosimetry and analysed twice using the gamma method with 3%|2mm and 2%|2mm acceptance criteria. The tolerance limit of GPR was 95%. Red, yellow, and green QDs were established for GPR examination. The interrelations were examined, as well as the analysis of effective differentiation of QD. Three models for QD forecasting based on discriminant analysis (DA), random decision forest (RDF) methods, and the hybrid model (HM) were built and evaluated. Most of the interrelations were small or moderate. The exception is correlations of the join function with the average number of monitor units per control point (R = 0.893) and the beam aperture with planning target volume (R = 0.897). While many metrics allow for the effective separation of the QDs from each other, the study shows that predicting the values of the QD is possible only through multi-component forecasting models, of which the HM is the most accurate (0.894). Of the three models explored in this study, the HM, which uses DA methods to predict red QD and RDF methods to predict green and yellow QDs, is the most promising one.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
The purpose was to analyse the interrelations between planning and complexity metrics and gamma passing rates (GPRs) obtained from VMAT treatments and build the forecasting models for qualitative prediction (QD) of GPRs results.
Materials and method UNASSIGNED
802 treatment arcs from the plans prepared for the head and neck, thorax, abdomen, and pelvic cancers were analysed. The plans were verified by portal dosimetry and analysed twice using the gamma method with 3%|2mm and 2%|2mm acceptance criteria. The tolerance limit of GPR was 95%. Red, yellow, and green QDs were established for GPR examination. The interrelations were examined, as well as the analysis of effective differentiation of QD. Three models for QD forecasting based on discriminant analysis (DA), random decision forest (RDF) methods, and the hybrid model (HM) were built and evaluated.
Results UNASSIGNED
Most of the interrelations were small or moderate. The exception is correlations of the join function with the average number of monitor units per control point (R = 0.893) and the beam aperture with planning target volume (R = 0.897). While many metrics allow for the effective separation of the QDs from each other, the study shows that predicting the values of the QD is possible only through multi-component forecasting models, of which the HM is the most accurate (0.894).
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
Of the three models explored in this study, the HM, which uses DA methods to predict red QD and RDF methods to predict green and yellow QDs, is the most promising one.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39144260
doi: 10.5603/rpor.101093
pii: rpor-29-3-318
pmc: PMC11321782
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

318-328

Informations de copyright

© 2024 Greater Poland Cancer Centre.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Conflict of interests: Authors declare no conflict of interests

Auteurs

Tomasz Piotrowski (T)

Department of Electroradiology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland.
Department of Medical Physics, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Poznan, Poland.
Department of Biomedical Physics, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland.

Adam Ryczkowski (A)

Department of Electroradiology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland.
Department of Medical Physics, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Poznan, Poland.

Petros Kalendralis (P)

Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Marcin Adamczewski (M)

Department of Biomedical Physics, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland.

Piotr Sadowski (P)

Department of Electroradiology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland.

Barbara Bajon (B)

Department of Medical Physics, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Poznan, Poland.

Marta Kruszyna-Mochalska (M)

Department of Electroradiology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland.
Department of Medical Physics, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Poznan, Poland.

Agata Jodda (A)

Department of Medical Physics, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Poznan, Poland.

Classifications MeSH