Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38709158›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024

Error detection for radiotherapy planning validation based on deep learning networks.

Shupeng Liu, Jianhui Ma, Fan Tang, Yuqi Liang, Yanning Li, Zihao Li, Tingting Wang, Meijuan Zhou

Abstract readValidation Study
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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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.

Shupeng LiuDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Tropical Disease Research, NMPA Key Laboratory for Safety Evaluation of Cosmetics, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0951-7562
Jianhui MaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Fan TangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Yuqi LiangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Yanning LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Zihao LiDepartment of Clinical Engineer, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Tingting WangDepartment of Clinical Engineer, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Meijuan ZhouDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Tropical Disease Research, NMPA Key Laboratory for Safety Evaluation of Cosmetics, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.

Funding

Guangdong Medical Association 2022-GDMAYB-04Guangzhou Science and Technology bureau 2023B03J1237NSFC 82273582
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuality assurance (QA) of patient-specific treatment plans for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) necessitates prior validation. However, the standard methodology exhibits deficiencies and lacks sensitivity in the analysis of positional dose distribution data, leading to difficulties in accurately identifying reasons for plan verification failure. This issue complicates and impedes the efficiency of QA tasks. PURPOSE: The primary aim of this research is to utilize deep learning algorithms for the extraction of 3D dose distribution maps and the creation of a predictive model for error classification across multiple machine models, treatment methodologies, and tumor locations.

methodWe devised five categories of validation plans (normal, gantry error, collimator error, couch error, and dose error), conforming to tolerance limits of different accuracy levels and employing 3D dose distribution data from a sample of 94 tumor patients. A CNN model was then constructed to predict the diverse error types, with predictions compared against the gamma pass rate (GPR) standard employing distinct thresholds (3%, 3 mm; 3%, 2 mm; 2%, 2 mm) to evaluate the model's performance. Furthermore, we appraised the model's robustness by assessing its functionality across diverse accelerators.

resultsThe accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 scores of CNN model performance were 0.907, 0.925, 0.907, and 0.908, respectively. Meanwhile, the performance on another device is 0.900, 0.918, 0.900, and 0.898. In addition, compared to the GPR method, the CNN model achieved better results in predicting different types of errors.

conclusionWhen juxtaposed with the GPR methodology, the CNN model exhibits superior predictive capability for classification in the validation of the radiation therapy plan on different devices. By using this model, the plan validation failures can be detected more rapidly and efficiently, minimizing the time required for QA tasks and serving as a valuable adjunct to overcome the constraints of the GPR method.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsDeep LearningQuality Assurance, Health CareRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedHumansNeoplasmsOrgans at RiskCNN multi‐classification modelerror detectionGPR methodthree‐dimensional dose validation

Identifiers

PMID38709158
PMCPMC11302817

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.