Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35967990›Full record

ArticleMachine learning: science and technology2021

A reinforcement learning application of a guided Monte Carlo Tree Search algorithm for beam orientation selection in radiation therapy.

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

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Machine learning: science and technology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Advances in Automated Treatment Planning.Seminars in radiation oncology · 2022
    Review
  5. Artificial intelligence and machine learning for medical imaging: A technology review.Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics (AIFB) · 2021
    Review
  6. Review
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.

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

Funding

Intelligent treatment planning for cancer radiotherapyR01CA237269 · NCI · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI JIA, XUN, JIANG, STEVE BIN · 2019 to 2023
$2.5M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA237269
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current beam orientation optimization algorithms for radiotherapy, such as column generation (CG), are typically heuristic or greedy in nature because of the size of the combinatorial problem, which leads to suboptimal solutions. We propose a reinforcement learning strategy using Monte Carlo Tree Search that can find a better beam orientation set in less time than CG. We utilize a reinforcement learning structure involving a supervised learning network to guide the Monte Carlo Tree Search and to explore the decision space of beam orientation selection problems. We previously trained a deep neural network (DNN) that takes in the patient anatomy, organ weights, and current beams, then approximates beam fitness values to indicate the next best beam to add. Here, we use this DNN to probabilistically guide the traversal of the branches of the Monte Carlo decision tree to add a new beam to the plan. To assess the feasibility of the algorithm, we used a test set of 13 prostate cancer patients, distinct from the 57 patients originally used to train and validate the DNN, to solve for 5-beam plans. To show the strength of the guided Monte Carlo tree search (GTS) compared to other search methods, we also provided the performances of guided search, uniform tree search and random search algorithms. On average, GTS outperformed all other methods. It found a better solution than CG in 237 seconds on average, compared to 360 seconds for CG, and outperformed all other methods in finding a solution with a lower objective function value in less than 1000 seconds. Using our guided tree search (GTS) method, we could maintain planning target volume (PTV) coverage within 1% error similar to CG, while reducing the organ-at-risk (OAR) mean dose for body, rectum, left and right femoral heads; mean dose to bladder was 1% higher with GTS than with CG.

Identifiers

PMID35967990
PMCPMC9370063

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.