Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37748037›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2024

Beam mask and sliding window-facilitated deep learning-based accurate and efficient dose prediction for pencil beam scanning proton therapy.

Lian Zhang, Jason M Holmes, Zhengliang Liu, Sujay A Vora, Terence T Sio, Carlos E Vargas, Nathan Y Yu, Sameer R Keole, Steven E Schild, Martin Bues and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Recent advances in applying machine learning to proton radiotherapy.Biomedical physics & engineering express · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. AI in Proton Therapy Treatment Planning: A Narrative Review.International journal of particle therapy · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Lian ZhangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Jason M HolmesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Zhengliang LiuSchool of Computing, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA.
Sujay A VoraDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Terence T SioDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Carlos E VargasDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Nathan Y YuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Sameer R KeoleDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Steven E SchildDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Martin BuesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Sheng LiSchool of Data Science, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Tianming LiuSchool of Computing, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA.
Jiajian ShenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
William W WongDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Wei LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.

Funding

4D Robust Optimization in Intensity-Modulated Proton TherapyK25CA168984 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI LIU, WEI · 2012 to 2015
$450k
Arizona Biomedical Research Commission Investigator AwardNational Cancer Institute (NCI) Career Developmental K25CA168984the Fred C. and Katherine B. Anderson Foundation Translational Cancer Research Awardthe Kemper Marley Foundationthe Lawrence W. and Marilyn W. Matteson Fund for Cancer Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate and efficient dose calculation is essential for on-line adaptive planning in proton therapy. Deep learning (DL) has shown promising dose prediction results in photon therapy. However, there is a scarcity of DL-based dose prediction methods specifically designed for proton therapy. Successful dose prediction method for proton therapy should account for more challenging dose prediction problems in pencil beam scanning proton therapy (PBSPT) due to its sensitivity to heterogeneities. PURPOSE: To develop a DL-based PBSPT dose prediction workflow with high accuracy and balanced complexity to support on-line adaptive proton therapy clinical decision and subsequent replanning.

methodsPBSPT plans of 103 prostate cancer patients (93 for training and the other 10 for independent testing) and 83 lung cancer patients (73 for training and the other 10 for independent testing) previously treated at our institution were included in the study, each with computed tomography scans (CTs), structure sets, and plan doses calculated by the in-house developed Monte-Carlo dose engine (considered as the ground truth in the model training and testing). For the ablation study, we designed three experiments corresponding to the following three methods: (1) Experiment 1, the conventional region of interest (ROI) (composed of targets and organs-at-risk [OARs]) method. (2) Experiment 2, the beam mask (generated by raytracing of proton beams) method to improve proton dose prediction. (3) Experiment 3, the sliding window method for the model to focus on local details to further improve proton dose prediction. A fully connected 3D-Unet was adopted as the backbone. Dose volume histogram (DVH) indices, 3D Gamma passing rates with a criterion of 3%/3 mm/10%, and dice coefficients for the structures enclosed by the iso-dose lines between the predicted and the ground truth doses were used as the evaluation metrics. The calculation time for each proton dose prediction was recorded to evaluate the method's efficiency.

resultsCompared to the conventional ROI method, the beam mask method improved the agreement of DVH indices for both targets and OARs and the sliding window method further improved the agreement of the DVH indices (for lung cancer, CTV D98 absolute deviation: 0.74 ± 0.18 vs. 0.57 ± 0.21 vs. 0.54 ± 0.15 Gy[RBE], ROI vs. beam mask vs. sliding window methods, respectively). For the 3D Gamma passing rates in the target, OARs, and BODY (outside target and OARs), the beam mask method improved the passing rates in these regions and the sliding window method further improved them (for prostate cancer, targets: 96.93% ± 0.53% vs. 98.88% ± 0.49% vs. 99.97% ± 0.07%, BODY: 86.88% ± 0.74% vs. 93.21% ± 0.56% vs. 95.17% ± 0.59%). A similar trend was also observed for the dice coefficients. This trend was especially remarkable for relatively low prescription isodose lines (for lung cancer, 10% isodose line dice: 0.871 ± 0.027 vs. 0.911 ± 0.023 vs. 0.927 ± 0.017). The dose predictions for all the testing cases were completed within 0.25 s.

conclusionsAn accurate and efficient deep learning-augmented proton dose prediction framework has been developed for PBSPT, which can predict accurate dose distributions not only inside but also outside ROI efficiently. The framework can potentially further reduce the initial planning and adaptive replanning workload in PBSPT.

Indexed as

Deep LearningLung NeoplasmsProstatic NeoplasmsProton TherapyRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedHumansMaleProtonsRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedProtons

Identifiers

PMID37748037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.