Detection of the failed-tolerance causes of electronic-portal-imaging-device-based in vivo dosimetry using machine learning for volumetric-modulated arc therapy: A feasibility study
{"title":"Detection of the failed-tolerance causes of electronic-portal-imaging-device-based in vivo dosimetry using machine learning for volumetric-modulated arc therapy: A feasibility study","authors":"Nipon Saiyo , Hironori Kojima , Kimiya Noto , Naoki Isomura , Kosuke Tsukamoto , Shotaro Yamaguchi , Yuto Segawa , Junya Kohigashi , Akihiro Takemura","doi":"10.1016/j.phro.2025.100785","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and Purpose</h3><div>When electronic-portal-imaging-device (EPID)-based <em>in vivo</em> dosimetry (IVD) identifies dose tolerance failures, the cause of the failures should be evaluated. This study aimed to develop a machine-learning (ML) model to classify the cause of EPID-based IVD failures in volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><div>Twenty-three prostate VMAT plans were used to recalculate the dose distribution in homogeneous phantom images as no-error (NE) plans. Errors in the randomized multileaf collimator (RMLC) position, monitor unit (MU) variation, lateral position, pitch rotation, and roll rotation were simulated. The IVD results of the NE plans and introduced errors were obtained using EPIgray software. Support vector machines (SVMs) were used to develop ML models for each error. The accuracy percentage, F1-score, and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) were used to evaluate models’ performances. The models were verified using five additional plans with an Alderson Rando phantom.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The models obtained accuracies of over 90% and F1-scores of 0.9 for the RMLC position and MU variation. For lateral position, pitch rotation, and roll rotation errors, the accuracies were 66.1%, 65.2%, and 66.8%, and the F1-scores were 0.66, 0.65, and 0.67, respectively. The AUCs for all the errors were over 0.7. Additionally, the model verification results consistently classified EPIgray data for all the error types.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The developed ML models classified the causes of the failed tolerance of the EPID-based IVD.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36850,"journal":{"name":"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology","volume":"34 ","pages":"Article 100785"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405631625000909","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and Purpose
When electronic-portal-imaging-device (EPID)-based in vivo dosimetry (IVD) identifies dose tolerance failures, the cause of the failures should be evaluated. This study aimed to develop a machine-learning (ML) model to classify the cause of EPID-based IVD failures in volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment.
Materials and Methods
Twenty-three prostate VMAT plans were used to recalculate the dose distribution in homogeneous phantom images as no-error (NE) plans. Errors in the randomized multileaf collimator (RMLC) position, monitor unit (MU) variation, lateral position, pitch rotation, and roll rotation were simulated. The IVD results of the NE plans and introduced errors were obtained using EPIgray software. Support vector machines (SVMs) were used to develop ML models for each error. The accuracy percentage, F1-score, and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) were used to evaluate models’ performances. The models were verified using five additional plans with an Alderson Rando phantom.
Results
The models obtained accuracies of over 90% and F1-scores of 0.9 for the RMLC position and MU variation. For lateral position, pitch rotation, and roll rotation errors, the accuracies were 66.1%, 65.2%, and 66.8%, and the F1-scores were 0.66, 0.65, and 0.67, respectively. The AUCs for all the errors were over 0.7. Additionally, the model verification results consistently classified EPIgray data for all the error types.
Conclusion
The developed ML models classified the causes of the failed tolerance of the EPID-based IVD.