Rosalie Klarenberg, Nienke L M Bakx, Coen W Hurkmans
{"title":"A comparative analysis of deep learning architectures with data augmentation and multichannel input for locoregional breast cancer radiotherapy.","authors":"Rosalie Klarenberg, Nienke L M Bakx, Coen W Hurkmans","doi":"10.1002/acm2.70047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Studies on deep learning dose prediction increasingly focus on 3D models with multiple input channels and data augmentation, which increases the training time and thus also the environmental burden and hampers the ease of re-training. Here we compare 2D and 3D U-Net models with clinical accepted plans to evaluate the appropriateness of using less computationally heavy models.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 2D Attention U-Net, a 2D HD U-Net, and a 3D U-Net were trained using 1 or 5 input channels with or without data augmentation and data from 89 locoregional breast cancer patients. Results were compared to clinically accepted plans. The significance of inclusion of more channels or data augmentation was compared to the base models and the HD U-Net and Attention U-Net were compared to their respective identically trained counterparts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Attention U-Net reached fewest PTV clinical goals (28%, mostly due to a too high average breast PTV dose) and improved using significantly using five channels and augmentation (49%). The HD U-Net already fulfilled 70% of the PTV goals, which did not improve much by adding more channels or augmentation. The 3D U-Net with five channels and augmentation reached 76%, compared to 81% in the clinically accepted plans. The lower rates for the HD U-Net compared to the 3D U-Net and clinical plans were mainly caused by a lower PTVn1n2 D98%, which was still on average 93%. Organ-at-risk goals were met in most cases for all models. Training time was approximately 8 fold for the 3D model.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Comparable results to a 3D U-Net and clinical plans can be reached with a 2D HD U-net for a dataset size commonly seen in clinical practice. The Attention U-Net did profit from adding extra channels and data augmentation but did not reach the same level of accuracy as the other models.</p>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":" ","pages":"e70047"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.70047","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Studies on deep learning dose prediction increasingly focus on 3D models with multiple input channels and data augmentation, which increases the training time and thus also the environmental burden and hampers the ease of re-training. Here we compare 2D and 3D U-Net models with clinical accepted plans to evaluate the appropriateness of using less computationally heavy models.
Methods: A 2D Attention U-Net, a 2D HD U-Net, and a 3D U-Net were trained using 1 or 5 input channels with or without data augmentation and data from 89 locoregional breast cancer patients. Results were compared to clinically accepted plans. The significance of inclusion of more channels or data augmentation was compared to the base models and the HD U-Net and Attention U-Net were compared to their respective identically trained counterparts.
Results: The Attention U-Net reached fewest PTV clinical goals (28%, mostly due to a too high average breast PTV dose) and improved using significantly using five channels and augmentation (49%). The HD U-Net already fulfilled 70% of the PTV goals, which did not improve much by adding more channels or augmentation. The 3D U-Net with five channels and augmentation reached 76%, compared to 81% in the clinically accepted plans. The lower rates for the HD U-Net compared to the 3D U-Net and clinical plans were mainly caused by a lower PTVn1n2 D98%, which was still on average 93%. Organ-at-risk goals were met in most cases for all models. Training time was approximately 8 fold for the 3D model.
Conclusions: Comparable results to a 3D U-Net and clinical plans can be reached with a 2D HD U-net for a dataset size commonly seen in clinical practice. The Attention U-Net did profit from adding extra channels and data augmentation but did not reach the same level of accuracy as the other models.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission.
JACMP will publish:
-Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500.
-Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed.
-Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references.
-Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents.
-Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews.
-Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics.
-Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic