Error detection and classification in patient-specific IMRT QA with dual neural networks

被引:27
|
作者
Potter, Nicholas J. [1 ]
Mund, Karl [1 ]
Andreozzi, Jacqueline M. [1 ]
Li, Jonathan G. [1 ]
Liu, Chihray [1 ]
Yan, Guanghua [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Florida, Dept Radiat Oncol, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA
关键词
classification; error detection; IMRT QA; machine learning; QUALITY-ASSURANCE; QUANTITATIVE-EVALUATION; RADIOMIC ANALYSIS; DOSE CALCULATION; DOSIMETRY; DELIVERY;
D O I
10.1002/mp.14416
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose Despite being the standard metric in patient-specific quality assurance (QA) for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), gamma analysis has two shortcomings: (a) it lacks sensitivity to small but clinically relevant errors (b) it does not provide efficient means to classify the error sources. The purpose of this work is to propose a dual neural network method to achieve simultaneous error detection and classification in patient-specific IMRT QA. Methods For a pair of dose distributions, we extracted the dose difference histogram (DDH) for the low dose gradient region and two signed distance-to-agreement (sDTA) maps (one in x direction and one in y direction) for the high dose gradient region. An artificial neural network (ANN) and a convolutional neural network (CNN) were designed to analyze the DDH and the two sDTA maps, respectively. The ANN was trained to detect and classify six classes of dosimetric errors: incorrect multileaf collimator (MLC) transmission (+/- 1%) and four types of monitor unit (MU) scaling errors (+/- 1% and +/- 2%). The CNN was trained to detect and classify seven classes of spatial errors: incorrect effective source size, 1 mm MLC leaf bank overtravel or undertravel, 2 mm single MLC leaf overtravel or undertravel, and device misalignment errors (1 mm in x- or y direction). An in-house planar dose calculation software was used to simulate measurements with errors and noise introduced. Both networks were trained and validated with 13 IMRT plans (totaling 88 fields). A fivefold cross-validation technique was used to evaluate their accuracy. Results Distinct features were found in the DDH and the sDTA maps. The ANN perfectly identified all four types of MU scaling errors and the specific accuracies for the classes of no error, MLC transmission increase, MLC transmission decrease were 98.9%, 96.6%, and 94.3%, respectively. For the CNN, the largest confusion occurred between the 1-mm-MLC bank overtravel class and the 1-mm-device alignment error in x-direction class, which brought the specific accuracies down to 90.9% and 92.0%, respectively. The specific accuracy for the 2-mm-single MLC leaf undertravel class was 93.2% as it misclassified 5.7% of the class as being error free (false negative). Otherwise, the specific accuracy was above 95%. The overall accuracies across the fivefold were 98.3 +/- 0.7% and 95.6% +/- 1.5% for the ANN and the CNN, respectively. Conclusions Both the DDH and the sDTA maps are suitable features for error classification in IMRT QA. The proposed dual neural network method achieved simultaneous error detection and classification with excellent accuracy. It could be used in complement with the gamma analysis to potentially shift the IMRT QA paradigm from passive pass/fail analysis to active error detection and root cause identification.
引用
收藏
页码:4711 / 4720
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Error Detection and Classification in Patient Specific IMRT QA with Dual Neural Networks
    Potter, N.
    Mund, K.
    Andreozzi, J.
    Li, J.
    Liu, C.
    Yan, G.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2020, 47 (06) : E459 - E459
  • [2] Reproducibility in patient-specific IMRT QA
    McKenzie, Elizabeth M.
    Balter, Peter A.
    Stingo, Francesco C.
    Jones, Jimmy
    Followill, David S.
    Kry, Stephen F.
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2014, 15 (03): : 241 - 251
  • [3] A statistical approach to IMRT patient-specific QA
    Palaniswaamy, Geethpriya
    Brame, Ryan Scott
    Yaddanapudi, Sridhar
    Rangaraj, Dharanipathy
    Mutic, Sasa
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2012, 39 (12) : 7560 - 7570
  • [4] Reproducibility in the Field of Patient-Specific IMRT QA
    McKenzie, E.
    Balter, P.
    Jones, J.
    Followill, D.
    Stingo, F.
    Kry, S.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2013, 40 (06)
  • [5] Sensitivity in error detection of patient specific QA tools for IMRT plans
    Lat, S. Z.
    Suriyapee, S.
    Sanghangthum, T.
    13TH SOUTH-EAST ASIAN CONGRESS OF MEDICAL PHYSICS 2015 (SEACOMP), 2016, 694
  • [6] Variational Clustering: Toward Unsupervised Machine Learning-Based Error Detection in Patient-Specific IMRT QA
    Perez-Sanchez, J.
    Lu, B.
    Samant, S.
    Li, J.
    Liu, C.
    Yan, G.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2022, 49 (06) : E286 - E286
  • [7] The limitation of patient-specific QA in IMRT with detector arrays
    Huh, S.
    Cho, W.
    Park, Y.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2006, 33 (06) : 2143 - 2143
  • [8] Developing a comprehensive patient-specific QA procedure for IMRT
    Luo, W.
    Li, J.
    Price, R.
    Chen, L.
    Fan, J.
    Chen, Z.
    Lin, T.
    Wang, L.
    Ma, C.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2006, 33 (06) : 2247 - 2248
  • [9] On the sensitivity of patient-specific IMRT QA to MLC positioning errors
    Yan, Guanghua
    Liu, Chihray
    Simon, Thomas A.
    Peng, Lee-Cheng
    Fox, Christopher
    Li, Jonathan G.
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2009, 10 (01): : 120 - 128
  • [10] On the Sensitivity of Patient-Specific IMRT QA to MLC Position Errors
    Yan, G.
    Simon, T.
    Peng, L.
    Fox, C.
    Liu, C.
    Li, J.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2008, 35 (06)