ArticleMedical physics2020
Using deep learning to predict beam-tunable Pareto optimal dose distribution for intensity-modulated radiation therapy.
Article in Medical physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving deep-learning IMRT plan quality for lymphoma using deliverability-aware training.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- End-to-end deep learning pipeline for automated IMRT planning in lymphoma: Feasibility and limitations.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Explicit modeling of beam geometry improves three-dimensional dose prediction for esophageal cancer radiotherapy under heterogeneous beam configurations.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- An automated planning optimization framework for cervical intensity-modulated radiation therapy using voxel dose prediction and adaptive parameter tuning.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- A deep learning model to predict dose distributions for breast cancer radiotherapy.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Deep learning-based dose prediction for prostate cancer with empty bladder protocol: a framework for efficient and personalized radiotherapy planning.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Dose prediction for cervical cancer in radiotherapy based on the beam channel generative adversarial network.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Application and progress of artificial intelligence in radiation therapy dose prediction.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2024Review
- Advances in Automated Treatment Planning.Seminars in radiation oncology · 2022Review
- OpenKBP-Opt: an international and reproducible evaluation of 76 knowledge-based planning pipelines.Physics in medicine and biology · 2022Article
- A Survey on Deep Learning for Precision Oncology.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- The feasibility study on the generalization of deep learning dose prediction model for volumetric modulated arc therapy of cervical cancer.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Radiation Therapy.IEEE transactions on radiation and plasma medical sciences · 2022Article
- Artificial intelligence applications in intensity modulated radiation treatment planning: an overview.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2021Review
- A feasibility study on deep learning-based individualized 3D dose distribution prediction.Medical physics · 2021Article
- Knowledge-based radiation treatment planning: A data-driven method survey.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Review
- A comparison of Monte Carlo dropout and bootstrap aggregation on the performance and uncertainty estimation in radiation therapy dose prediction with deep learning neural networks.Physics in medicine and biology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMany researchers have developed deep learning models for predicting clinical dose distributions and Pareto optimal dose distributions. Models for predicting Pareto optimal dose distributions have generated optimal plans in real time using anatomical structures and static beam orientations. However, Pareto optimal dose prediction for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) prostate planning with variable beam numbers and orientations has not yet been investigated. We propose to develop a deep learning model that can predict Pareto optimal dose distributions by using any given set of beam angles, along with patient anatomy, as input to train the deep neural networks. We implement and compare two deep learning networks that predict with two different beam configuration modalities.
methodsWe generated Pareto optimal plans for 70 patients with prostate cancer. We used fluence map optimization to generate 500 IMRT plans that sampled the Pareto surface for each patient, for a total of 35 000 plans. We studied and compared two different models, Models I and II. Although they both used the same anatomical structures - including the planning target volume (PTV), organs at risk (OARs), and body - these models were designed with two different methods for representing beam angles. Model I directly uses beam angles as a second input to the network as a binary vector. Model II converts the beam angles into beam doses that are conformal to the PTV. We divided the 70 patients into 54 training, 6 validation, and 10 testing patients, thus yielding 27 000 training, 3000 validation, and 5000 testing plans. Mean square loss (MSE) was taken as the loss function. We used the Adam optimizer with a default learning rate of 0.01 to optimize the network's performance. We evaluated the models' performance by comparing their predicted dose distributions with the ground truth (Pareto optimal) dose distribution, in terms of dose volume histogram (DVH) plots and evaluation metrics such as PTV D
resultsOur deep learning models predicted voxel-level dose distributions that precisely matched the ground truth dose distributions. The DVHs generated also precisely matched the ground truth. Evaluation metrics such as PTV statistics, dose conformity, dose spillage (R50), and homogeneity index also confirmed the accuracy of PTV curves on the DVH. Quantitatively, Model I's prediction error of 0.043 (confirmation), 0.043 (homogeneity), 0.327 (R50), 2.80% (D95), 3.90% (D98), 0.6% (D50), and 1.10% (D2) was lower than that of Model II, which obtained 0.076 (confirmation), 0.058 (homogeneity), 0.626 (R50), 7.10% (D95), 6.50% (D98), 8.40% (D50), and 6.30% (D2). Model I also outperformed Model II in terms of the mean dose error and the max dose error on the PTV, bladder, rectum, left femoral head, and right femoral head.
conclusionsTreatment planners who use our models will be able to use deep learning to control the trade-offs between the PTV and OAR weights, as well as the beam number and configurations in real time. Our dose prediction methods provide a stepping stone to building automatic IMRT treatment planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.