Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37261720›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023

Improvement of deep learning prediction model in patient-specific QA for VMAT with MLC leaf position map and patient's dose distribution.

Ryota Tozuka, Noriyuki Kadoya, Seiji Tomori, Yuto Kimura, Tomohiro Kajikawa, Yuto Sugai, Yushan Xiao, Keiichi Jingu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors.

Ryota TozukaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5018-3800
Noriyuki KadoyaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan.
Seiji TomoriDepartment of Radiology, National Hospital Organization Sendai Medical Center, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan.
Yuto KimuraRadiation Oncology Center, Ofuna Chuo Hospital, Kamakura, Japan.
Tomohiro KajikawaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan.
Yuto SugaiDepartment of Radiological Technology, Keio University Hospital, Shinjuku, Japan.
Yushan XiaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan.
Keiichi JinguDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDeep learning-based virtual patient-specific quality assurance (QA) is a novel technique that enables patient QA without measurement. However, this method could be improved by further evaluating the optimal data to be used as input. Therefore, a deep learning-based model that uses multileaf collimator (MLC) information per control point and dose distribution in patient's CT as inputs was developed.

methodsOverall, 96 volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans generated for prostate cancer treatment were used. We developed a model (Model 1) that can predict measurement-based gamma passing rate (GPR) for a treatment plan using data stored as a map reflecting the MLC leaf position at each control point (MLPM) and data of the dose distribution in patient's CT as inputs. The evaluation of the model was based on the mean absolute error (MAE) and Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) between the measured and predicted GPR. For comparison, we also analyzed models trained with the dose distribution in patient's CT alone (Model 2) and with dose distributions recalculated on a virtual phantom CT (Model 3).

resultsAt the 2%/2 mm criterion, MAE[%] and r for Model 1, Model 2, and Model 3 were 2.32% ± 0.43% and 0.54 ± 0.03, 2.70% ± 0.26%, and 0.32 ± 0.08, and 2.96% ± 0.23% and 0.24 ± 0.22, respectively; at the 3%/3 mm criterion, these values were 1.25% ± 0.05% and 0.36 ± 0.18, 1.57% ± 0.35% and 0.19 ± 0.20, and 1.39% ± 0.32% and 0.17 ± 0.22, respectively. This result showed that Model 1 exhibited the lowest MAE and highest r at both criteria of 2%/2 mm and 3%3 mm.

conclusionsThese findings showed that a model that combines the MLPM and dose distribution in patient's CT exhibited a better GPR prediction performance compared with the other two studied models.

Indexed as

Deep LearningProstatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedHumansMaleProstateRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisteddeep learningMLC leaf position mapprostatequality assuranceradiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID37261720
PMCPMC10562023

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.