Image-based features in machine learning to identify delivery errors and predict error magnitude for patient-specific IMRT quality assurance

• Published in: Strahlentherapie und Onkologie 2023-05, Vol.199 (5), p.498-510
• Main Authors: Huang, Ying, Pi, Yifei, Ma, Kui, Miao, Xiaojuan, Fu, Sichao, Chen, Hua, Wang, Hao, Gu, Hengle, Shao, Yan, Duan, Yanhua, Feng, Aihui, Zhuo, Weihai, Xu, Zhiyong
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Classification; Collimators; Error analysis; Humans; Lung cancer; Machine Learning; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Misalignment; Oncology; Original; Original Article; Predictions; Quality assurance; Quality control; Radiotherapy; Radiotherapy Dosage; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods; Root-mean-square errors
• ISSN: 0179-7158; 1439-099X
• DOI: 10.1007/s00066-023-02076-8

Objective To identify delivery error type and predict associated error magnitude by image-based features using machine learning (ML). Methods In this study, a total of 40 thoracic plans (including 208 beams) were selected, and four error types with different magnitudes were introduced into the original plans, including 1) collimator misalignment (COLL), 2) monitor unit (MU) variation, 3) systematic multileaf collimator misalignment (MLCS), and 4) random MLC misalignment (MLCR). These dose distributions of portal dose predictions for the original plans were defined as the reference dose distributions (RDD), while those for the error-introduced plans were defined as the error-introduced dose distributions (EDD). Both distributions were calculated for all beams with portal dose image prediction (PDIP). Besides, 14 image-based features were extracted from RDD and EDD of portal dose predictions to obtain the feature vectors. In addition, a random forest was adopted for the multiclass classification task, and regression prediction for error magnitude. Results The top five features extracted with the highest weight included 1) the relative displacement in the x direction, 2) the ratio of the absolute minimum residual error to the maximal RDD value, 3) the product of the maximum and minimum residuals, 4) the ratio of the absolute maximum residual error to the maximal RDD value, and 5) the ratio of the absolute mean residual value to the maximal RDD value. The relative displacement in the x direction had the highest weight. The overall accuracy of the five-class classification model was 99.85% for the validation set and 99.30% for the testing set. This model could be applied to the classification of the error-free plan, COLL, MU, MLCS, and MLCR with an accuracy of 100%, 98.4%, 99.9%, 98.0%, and 98.3%, respectively. MLCR had the worst performance in error magnitude prediction (70.1–96.6%), while others had better performance in error magnitude prediction (higher than 93%). In the error magnitude prediction, the mean absolute error (MAE) between predicted error magnitude and actual error ranged from 0.03 to 0.33, with the root mean squared error (RMSE) varying from 0.17 to 0.56 for the validation set. The MAE and RMSE ranged from 0.03 to 0.50 and 0.44 to 0.59 for the test set, respectively. Conclusion It could be demonstrated in this study that the image-based features extracted from RDD and EDD can be employed to identify different types of delivery errors and accur