Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37987544›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024

Prediction of patient-specific quality assurance for volumetric modulated arc therapy using radiomics-based machine learning with dose distribution.

Natsuki Ishizaka, Tomotaka Kinoshita, Madoka Sakai, Shunpei Tanabe, Hisashi Nakano, Satoshi Tanabe, Sae Nakamura, Kazuki Mayumi, Shinya Akamatsu, Takayuki Nishikata and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2024. 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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

17 authors.

Natsuki IshizakaDepartment of Radiology, Niigata Prefectural Shibata Hospital, Shibata City, Niigata, Japan.
Tomotaka KinoshitaDepartment of Radiological Technology, Niigata University Graduate School of Health Sciences, Niigata City, Niigata, Japan.
Madoka SakaiDepartment of Radiology, Nagaoka Chuo General Hospital, Nagaoka, Niigata, Japan.
Shunpei TanabeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Niigata University Medical and Dental Hospital, Niigata City, Niigata, Japan.
Hisashi NakanoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Niigata University Medical and Dental Hospital, Niigata City, Niigata, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9023-880X
Satoshi TanabeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Niigata University Medical and Dental Hospital, Niigata City, Niigata, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3488-3871
Sae NakamuraDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Niigata Neurosurgical Hospital, Niigata City, Niigata, Japan.
Kazuki MayumiDepartment of Radiological Technology, Niigata University Graduate School of Health Sciences, Niigata City, Niigata, Japan.
Shinya AkamatsuDepartment of Radiological Technology, Niigata University Graduate School of Health Sciences, Niigata City, Niigata, Japan.
Takayuki NishikataDepartment of Radiological Technology, Niigata University Graduate School of Health Sciences, Niigata City, Niigata, Japan.
Takeshi TakizawaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Niigata University Medical and Dental Hospital, Niigata City, Niigata, Japan.
Takumi YamadaSection of Radiology, Department of Clinical Support, Niigata University Medical and Dental Hospital, Niigata City, Niigata, Japan.
Hironori SakaiSection of Radiology, Department of Clinical Support, Niigata University Medical and Dental Hospital, Niigata City, Niigata, Japan.
Motoki KaiduDepartment of Radiology and Radiation Oncology, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata City, Niigata, Japan.
Ryuta SasamotoDepartment of Radiological Technology, Niigata University Graduate School of Health Sciences, Niigata City, Niigata, Japan.
Hiroyuki IshikawaDepartment of Radiology and Radiation Oncology, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata City, Niigata, Japan.
Satoru UtsunomiyaDepartment of Radiological Technology, Niigata University Graduate School of Health Sciences, Niigata City, Niigata, Japan.

Funding

Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI 19K17227Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI 20K16819Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI 21K07722Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI 22K07792
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe sought to develop machine learning models to predict the results of patient-specific quality assurance (QA) for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), which were represented by several dose-evaluation metrics-including the gamma passing rates (GPRs)-and criteria based on the radiomic features of 3D dose distribution in a phantom.

methodsA total of 4,250 radiomic features of 3D dose distribution in a cylindrical dummy phantom for 140 arcs from 106 clinical VMAT plans were extracted. We obtained the following dose-evaluation metrics: GPRs with global and local normalization, the dose difference (DD) in 1% and 2% passing rates (DD1% and DD2%) for 10% and 50% dose threshold, and the distance-to-agreement in 1-mm and 2-mm passing rates (DTA1 mm and DTA2 mm) for 0.5%/mm and 1.0%.mm dose gradient threshold determined by measurement using a diode array in patient-specific QA. The machine learning regression models for predicting the values of the dose-evaluation metrics using the radiomic features were developed based on the elastic net (EN) and extra trees (ET) models. The feature selection and tuning of hyperparameters were performed with nested cross-validation in which four-fold cross-validation is used within the inner loop, and the performance of each model was evaluated in terms of the root mean square error (RMSE), the mean absolute error (MAE), and Spearman's rank correlation coefficient.

resultsThe RMSE and MAE for the developed machine learning models ranged from <1% to nearly <10% depending on the dose-evaluation metric, the criteria, and dose and dose gradient thresholds used for both machine learning models. It was advantageous to focus on high dose region for predicating global GPR, DDs, and DTAs. For certain metrics and criteria, it was possible to create models applicable for patients' heterogeneity by training only with dose distributions in phantom.

conclusionsThe developed machine learning models showed high performance for predicting dose-evaluation metrics especially for high dose region depending on the metric and criteria. Our results demonstrate that the radiomic features of dose distribution can be considered good indicators of the plan complexity and useful in predicting measured dose evaluation metrics.

Indexed as

Radiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedGamma RaysHumansMachine LearningRadiomicsRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assistedmachine learningquality assuranceradiomicsvolumetric modulated arc therapy

Identifiers

PMID37987544
PMCPMC10795425

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.