Ying Huang, Ruxin Cai, Yifei Pi, Kui Ma, Qing Kong, Weihai Zhuo, Yan Kong
{"title":"使用带有日志文件的 DenseNet 预测 IMRT 3D 剂量输送准确性的可行性研究。","authors":"Ying Huang, Ruxin Cai, Yifei Pi, Kui Ma, Qing Kong, Weihai Zhuo, Yan Kong","doi":"10.3233/XST-230412","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to explore the feasibility of DenseNet in the establishment of a three-dimensional (3D) gamma prediction model of IMRT based on the actual parameters recorded in the log files during delivery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 55 IMRT plans (including 367 fields) were randomly selected. The gamma analysis was performed using gamma criteria of 3% /3 mm (Dose Difference/Distance to Agreement), 3% /2 mm, 2% /3 mm, and 2% /2 mm with a 10% dose threshold. In addition, the log files that recorded the gantry angle, monitor units (MU), multi-leaf collimator (MLC), and jaws position during delivery were collected. These log files were then converted to MU-weighted fluence maps as the input of DenseNet, gamma passing rates (GPRs) under four different gamma criteria as the output, and mean square errors (MSEs) as the loss function of this model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Under different gamma criteria, the accuracy of a 3D GPR prediction model decreased with the implementation of stricter gamma criteria. In the test set, the mean absolute error (MAE) of the prediction model under the gamma criteria of 3% /3 mm, 2% /3 mm, 3% /2 mm, and 2% /2 mm was 1.41, 1.44, 3.29, and 3.54, respectively; the root mean square error (RMSE) was 1.91, 1.85, 4.27, and 4.40, respectively; the Sr was 0.487, 0.554, 0.573, and 0.506, respectively. There was a correlation between predicted and measured GPRs (P < 0.01). Additionally, there was no significant difference in the accuracy between the validation set and the test set. The accuracy in the high GPR group was high, and the MAE in the high GPR group was smaller than that in the low GPR group under four different gamma criteria.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study, a 3D GPR prediction model of patient-specific QA using DenseNet was established based on log files. As an auxiliary tool for 3D dose verification in IMRT, this model is expected to improve the accuracy and efficiency of dose validation.</p>","PeriodicalId":49948,"journal":{"name":"Journal of X-Ray Science and Technology","volume":" ","pages":"1199-1208"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A feasibility study to predict 3D dose delivery accuracy for IMRT using DenseNet with log files.\",\"authors\":\"Ying Huang, Ruxin Cai, Yifei Pi, Kui Ma, Qing Kong, Weihai Zhuo, Yan Kong\",\"doi\":\"10.3233/XST-230412\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to explore the feasibility of DenseNet in the establishment of a three-dimensional (3D) gamma prediction model of IMRT based on the actual parameters recorded in the log files during delivery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 55 IMRT plans (including 367 fields) were randomly selected. The gamma analysis was performed using gamma criteria of 3% /3 mm (Dose Difference/Distance to Agreement), 3% /2 mm, 2% /3 mm, and 2% /2 mm with a 10% dose threshold. In addition, the log files that recorded the gantry angle, monitor units (MU), multi-leaf collimator (MLC), and jaws position during delivery were collected. These log files were then converted to MU-weighted fluence maps as the input of DenseNet, gamma passing rates (GPRs) under four different gamma criteria as the output, and mean square errors (MSEs) as the loss function of this model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Under different gamma criteria, the accuracy of a 3D GPR prediction model decreased with the implementation of stricter gamma criteria. In the test set, the mean absolute error (MAE) of the prediction model under the gamma criteria of 3% /3 mm, 2% /3 mm, 3% /2 mm, and 2% /2 mm was 1.41, 1.44, 3.29, and 3.54, respectively; the root mean square error (RMSE) was 1.91, 1.85, 4.27, and 4.40, respectively; the Sr was 0.487, 0.554, 0.573, and 0.506, respectively. There was a correlation between predicted and measured GPRs (P < 0.01). Additionally, there was no significant difference in the accuracy between the validation set and the test set. The accuracy in the high GPR group was high, and the MAE in the high GPR group was smaller than that in the low GPR group under four different gamma criteria.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study, a 3D GPR prediction model of patient-specific QA using DenseNet was established based on log files. As an auxiliary tool for 3D dose verification in IMRT, this model is expected to improve the accuracy and efficiency of dose validation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49948,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of X-Ray Science and Technology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1199-1208\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of X-Ray Science and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3233/XST-230412\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INSTRUMENTS & INSTRUMENTATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of X-Ray Science and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/XST-230412","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INSTRUMENTS & INSTRUMENTATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
A feasibility study to predict 3D dose delivery accuracy for IMRT using DenseNet with log files.
Objective: This study aims to explore the feasibility of DenseNet in the establishment of a three-dimensional (3D) gamma prediction model of IMRT based on the actual parameters recorded in the log files during delivery.
Methods: A total of 55 IMRT plans (including 367 fields) were randomly selected. The gamma analysis was performed using gamma criteria of 3% /3 mm (Dose Difference/Distance to Agreement), 3% /2 mm, 2% /3 mm, and 2% /2 mm with a 10% dose threshold. In addition, the log files that recorded the gantry angle, monitor units (MU), multi-leaf collimator (MLC), and jaws position during delivery were collected. These log files were then converted to MU-weighted fluence maps as the input of DenseNet, gamma passing rates (GPRs) under four different gamma criteria as the output, and mean square errors (MSEs) as the loss function of this model.
Results: Under different gamma criteria, the accuracy of a 3D GPR prediction model decreased with the implementation of stricter gamma criteria. In the test set, the mean absolute error (MAE) of the prediction model under the gamma criteria of 3% /3 mm, 2% /3 mm, 3% /2 mm, and 2% /2 mm was 1.41, 1.44, 3.29, and 3.54, respectively; the root mean square error (RMSE) was 1.91, 1.85, 4.27, and 4.40, respectively; the Sr was 0.487, 0.554, 0.573, and 0.506, respectively. There was a correlation between predicted and measured GPRs (P < 0.01). Additionally, there was no significant difference in the accuracy between the validation set and the test set. The accuracy in the high GPR group was high, and the MAE in the high GPR group was smaller than that in the low GPR group under four different gamma criteria.
Conclusions: In this study, a 3D GPR prediction model of patient-specific QA using DenseNet was established based on log files. As an auxiliary tool for 3D dose verification in IMRT, this model is expected to improve the accuracy and efficiency of dose validation.
期刊介绍:
Research areas within the scope of the journal include:
Interaction of x-rays with matter: x-ray phenomena, biological effects of radiation, radiation safety and optical constants
X-ray sources: x-rays from synchrotrons, x-ray lasers, plasmas, and other sources, conventional or unconventional
Optical elements: grazing incidence optics, multilayer mirrors, zone plates, gratings, other diffraction optics
Optical instruments: interferometers, spectrometers, microscopes, telescopes, microprobes