» Articles » PMID: 37177789

Development of a Deep Learning-based Error Detection System Without Error Dose Maps in the Patient-specific Quality Assurance of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy

Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

To detect errors in patient-specific quality assurance (QA) for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), we proposed an error detection method based on dose distribution analysis using unsupervised deep learning approach and analyzed 161 prostate VMAT beams measured with a cylindrical detector. For performing error simulation, in addition to error-free dose distribution, dose distributions containing nine types of error, including multileaf collimator (MLC) positional errors, gantry rotation errors, radiation output errors and phantom setup errors, were generated. Only error-free data were employed for the model training, and error-free and error data were employed for the tests. As a deep learning model, the variational autoencoder (VAE) was adopted. The anomaly of test data was quantified by calculating Mahalanobis distance based on the feature vectors acquired from a trained encoder. Based on this anomaly, test data were classified as 'error-free' or 'any-error.' For comparison with conventional approaches, gamma (γ)-analysis was performed, and supervised learning convolutional neural network (S-CNN) was constructed. Receiver operating characteristic curves were obtained to evaluate their performance with the area under the curve (AUC). For all error types, except systematic MLC positional and radiation output errors, the performance of the methods was in the order of S-CNN ˃ VAE-based ˃ γ-analysis (only S-CNN required error data for model training). For example, in random MLC positional error simulation, the AUC of our method, S-CNN and γ-analysis were 0.699, 0.921 and 0.669, respectively. Our results showed that the VAE-based method has the potential to detect errors in patient-specific VMAT QA.

Citing Articles

Applications of artificial intelligence for machine- and patient-specific quality assurance in radiation therapy: current status and future directions.

Ono T, Iramina H, Hirashima H, Adachi T, Nakamura M, Mizowaki T J Radiat Res. 2024; 65(4):421-432.

PMID: 38798135 PMC: 11262865. DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rrae033.


Evaluating AAPM-TG-218 recommendations: Gamma index tolerance and action limits in IMRT and VMAT quality assurance using SunCHECK.

Deng J, Liu S, Huang Y, Li X, Wu X J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2024; 25(6):e14277.

PMID: 38243604 PMC: 11163510. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.14277.

References
1.
Ezzell G, Burmeister J, Dogan N, LoSasso T, Mechalakos J, Mihailidis D . IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. Med Phys. 2009; 36(11):5359-73. DOI: 10.1118/1.3238104. View

2.
Ezzell G, Galvin J, Low D, Palta J, Rosen I, Sharpe M . Guidance document on delivery, treatment planning, and clinical implementation of IMRT: report of the IMRT Subcommittee of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee. Med Phys. 2003; 30(8):2089-115. DOI: 10.1118/1.1591194. View

3.
Potter N, Mund K, Andreozzi J, Li J, Liu C, Yan G . Error detection and classification in patient-specific IMRT QA with dual neural networks. Med Phys. 2021; 47(10):4711-4720. DOI: 10.1002/mp.14416. View

4.
Kry S, Molineu A, Kerns J, Faught A, Huang J, Pulliam K . Institutional patient-specific IMRT QA does not predict unacceptable plan delivery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014; 90(5):1195-201. PMC: 4276500. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.08.334. View

5.
Scaggion A, Negri A, Rossato M, Roggio A, Simonato F, Bacco S . Delivering RapidArc®: A comprehensive study on accuracy and long term stability. Phys Med. 2016; 32(7):866-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2016.05.056. View