Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32621789›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2020

Using deep learning to predict beam-tunable Pareto optimal dose distribution for intensity-modulated radiation therapy.

Gyanendra Bohara, Azar Sadeghnejad Barkousaraie, Steve Jiang, Dan Nguyen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Advances in Automated Treatment Planning.Seminars in radiation oncology · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. A Survey on Deep Learning for Precision Oncology.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Artificial Intelligence in Radiation Therapy.IEEE transactions on radiation and plasma medical sciences · 2022
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Knowledge-based radiation treatment planning: A data-driven method survey.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021
    Review
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Gyanendra BoharaMedical Artificial Intelligence and Automation (MAIA) Laboratory, Department of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA.
Azar Sadeghnejad BarkousaraieMedical Artificial Intelligence and Automation (MAIA) Laboratory, Department of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA.
Steve JiangMedical Artificial Intelligence and Automation (MAIA) Laboratory, Department of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA.
Dan NguyenMedical Artificial Intelligence and Automation (MAIA) Laboratory, Department of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA.

Funding

Intelligent treatment planning for cancer radiotherapyR01CA237269 · NCI · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI JIA, XUN, JIANG, STEVE BIN · 2019 to 2023
$2.5M
HHS | National Institutes of Health (NIH) R01CA237269HHS | National Institutes of Health (NIH) R01CA237269-02NCI NIH HHS R01 CA237269NIH HHS R01CA237269
6 · The paper itself

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

Deep LearningRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedHumansMaleOrgans at RiskRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assistedbeam tunabledeep learningintensity-modulated radiation therapyneural networkspareto optimalityprostate cancer

Identifiers

PMID32621789
PMCPMC7821384

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.