{"title":"使用两种不同类型的输入轮廓对基于深度学习的头颈癌患者剂量预测进行评估","authors":"Masahide Saito, Noriyuki Kadoya, Yuto Kimura, Hikaru Nemoto, Ryota Tozuka, Keiichi Jingu, Hiroshi Onishi","doi":"10.1002/acm2.14519","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis study evaluates deep learning (DL) based dose prediction methods in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients using two types of input contours.Materials and methodsSeventy‐five HNC patients undergoing two‐step volumetric‐modulated arc therapy were included. Dose prediction was performed using the AIVOT prototype (AiRato.Inc, Sendai, Japan), a commercial software with an HD U‐net‐based dose distribution prediction system. Models were developed for the initial plan (46 Gy/23Fr) and boost plan (24 Gy/12Fr), trained with 65 cases and tested with 10 cases. The 8‐channel model used one target (PTV) and seven organs at risk (OARs), while the 10‐channel model added two dummy contours (PTV ring and spinal cord PRV). Predicted and deliverable doses, obtained through dose mimicking on another radiation treatment planning system, were evaluated using dose‐volume indices for PTV and OARs.ResultsFor the initial plan, both models achieved approximately 2% prediction accuracy for the target dose and maintained accuracy within 3.2 Gy for OARs. The 10‐channel model outperformed the 8‐channel model for certain dose indices. For the boost plan, both models exhibited prediction accuracies of approximately 2% for the target dose and 1 Gy for OARs. The 10‐channel model showed significantly closer predictions to the ground truth for D50% and Dmean. Deliverable plans based on prediction doses showed little significant difference compared to the ground truth, especially for the boost plan.ConclusionDL‐based dose prediction using the AIVOT prototype software in HNC patients yielded promising results. While additional contours may enhance prediction accuracy, their impact on dose mimicking is relatively small.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of deep learning based dose prediction in head and neck cancer patients using two different types of input contours\",\"authors\":\"Masahide Saito, Noriyuki Kadoya, Yuto Kimura, Hikaru Nemoto, Ryota Tozuka, Keiichi Jingu, Hiroshi Onishi\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/acm2.14519\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeThis study evaluates deep learning (DL) based dose prediction methods in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients using two types of input contours.Materials and methodsSeventy‐five HNC patients undergoing two‐step volumetric‐modulated arc therapy were included. Dose prediction was performed using the AIVOT prototype (AiRato.Inc, Sendai, Japan), a commercial software with an HD U‐net‐based dose distribution prediction system. Models were developed for the initial plan (46 Gy/23Fr) and boost plan (24 Gy/12Fr), trained with 65 cases and tested with 10 cases. The 8‐channel model used one target (PTV) and seven organs at risk (OARs), while the 10‐channel model added two dummy contours (PTV ring and spinal cord PRV). Predicted and deliverable doses, obtained through dose mimicking on another radiation treatment planning system, were evaluated using dose‐volume indices for PTV and OARs.ResultsFor the initial plan, both models achieved approximately 2% prediction accuracy for the target dose and maintained accuracy within 3.2 Gy for OARs. The 10‐channel model outperformed the 8‐channel model for certain dose indices. For the boost plan, both models exhibited prediction accuracies of approximately 2% for the target dose and 1 Gy for OARs. The 10‐channel model showed significantly closer predictions to the ground truth for D50% and Dmean. Deliverable plans based on prediction doses showed little significant difference compared to the ground truth, especially for the boost plan.ConclusionDL‐based dose prediction using the AIVOT prototype software in HNC patients yielded promising results. While additional contours may enhance prediction accuracy, their impact on dose mimicking is relatively small.\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14519\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14519","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluation of deep learning based dose prediction in head and neck cancer patients using two different types of input contours
PurposeThis study evaluates deep learning (DL) based dose prediction methods in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients using two types of input contours.Materials and methodsSeventy‐five HNC patients undergoing two‐step volumetric‐modulated arc therapy were included. Dose prediction was performed using the AIVOT prototype (AiRato.Inc, Sendai, Japan), a commercial software with an HD U‐net‐based dose distribution prediction system. Models were developed for the initial plan (46 Gy/23Fr) and boost plan (24 Gy/12Fr), trained with 65 cases and tested with 10 cases. The 8‐channel model used one target (PTV) and seven organs at risk (OARs), while the 10‐channel model added two dummy contours (PTV ring and spinal cord PRV). Predicted and deliverable doses, obtained through dose mimicking on another radiation treatment planning system, were evaluated using dose‐volume indices for PTV and OARs.ResultsFor the initial plan, both models achieved approximately 2% prediction accuracy for the target dose and maintained accuracy within 3.2 Gy for OARs. The 10‐channel model outperformed the 8‐channel model for certain dose indices. For the boost plan, both models exhibited prediction accuracies of approximately 2% for the target dose and 1 Gy for OARs. The 10‐channel model showed significantly closer predictions to the ground truth for D50% and Dmean. Deliverable plans based on prediction doses showed little significant difference compared to the ground truth, especially for the boost plan.ConclusionDL‐based dose prediction using the AIVOT prototype software in HNC patients yielded promising results. While additional contours may enhance prediction accuracy, their impact on dose mimicking is relatively small.