Pretreatment Patient-Specific Quality Assurance Prediction Based on 1D Complexity Metrics and 3D Planning Dose: Classification, Gamma Passing Rates, and DVH Metrics.
Liyuan Chen,Huanli Luo,Shi Li,Xia Tan,Bin Feng,Xin Yang,Ying Wang,Fu Jin
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-023-02376-4
IF: 4.309
2023-01-01
Radiation Oncology
Abstract:PURPOSE:Highly modulated radiotherapy plans aim to achieve target conformality and spare organs at risk, but the high complexity of the plan may increase the uncertainty of treatment. Thus, patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) plays a crucial role in ensuring treatment accuracy and providing clinical guidance. This study aims to propose a prediction model based on complexity metrics and patient planning dose for PSQA results.MATERIALS AND METHODS:Planning dose, measurement-based reconstructed dose and plan complexity metrics of the 687 radiotherapy plans of patients treated in our institution were collected for model establishing. Global gamma passing rate (GPR, 3%/2mm,10% threshold) of 90% was used as QA criterion. Neural architecture models based on Swin-transformer were adapted to process 3D dose and incorporate 1D metrics to predict QA results. The dataset was divided into training (447), validation (90), and testing (150) sets. Evaluation of predictions was performed using mean absolute error (MAE) for GPR, planning target volume (PTV) HI and PTV CI, mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) for PTV D95, PTV D2 and PTV Dmean, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) for classification. Furthermore, we also compare the prediction results with other models based on either only 1D or 3D inputs.RESULTS:In this dataset, 72.8% (500/687) plans passed the pretreatment QA under the criterion. On the testing set, our model achieves the highest performance, with the 1D model slightly surpassing the 3D model. The performance results are as follows (combine, 1D, and 3D transformer): The AUCs are 0.92, 0.88 and 0.86 for QA classification. The MAEs of prediction are 0.039, 0.046, and 0.040 for 3D GPR, 0.018, 0.021, and 0.019 for PTV HI, and 0.075, 0.078, and 0.084 for PTV CI. Specifically, for cases with 3D GPRs greater than 90%, the MAE could achieve 0.020 (combine). The MAPE of prediction is 1.23%, 1.52%, and 1.66% for PTV D95, 2.36%, 2.67%, and 2.45% for PTV D2, and 1.46%, 1.70%, and 1.71% for PTV Dmean.CONCLUSION:The model based on 1D complexity metrics and 3D planning dose could predict pretreatment PSQA results with high accuracy and the complexity metrics play a leading role in the model. Furthermore, dose-volume metric deviations of PTV could be predicted and more clinically valuable information could be provided.