Using an external surrogate for predictor model training in real‐time motion management of lung tumors

Purpose: Precise prediction of respiratory motion is a prerequisite for real‐time motion compensation techniques such as beam, dynamic couch, or dynamic multileaf collimator tracking. Collection of tumor motion data to train the prediction model is required for most algorithms. To avoid exposure of patients to additional dose from imaging during this procedure, the feasibility of training a linear respiratory motion prediction model with an external surrogate signal is investigated and its performance benchmarked against training the model with tumor positions directly. Methods: The authors implement a lung tumor motion prediction algorithm based on linear ridge regression that is suitable to overcome system latencies up to about 300 ms. Its performance is investigated on a data set of 91 patient breathing trajectories recorded from fiducial marker tracking during radiotherapy delivery to the lung of ten patients. The expected 3D geometric error is quantified as a function of predictor lookahead time, signal sampling frequency and history vector length. Additionally, adaptive model retraining is evaluated, i.e., repeatedly updating the prediction model after initial training. Training length for this is gradually increased with incoming (internal) data availability. To assess practical feasibility model calculation times as well as various minimum data lengths for retraining are evaluated. Relative performance of model training with external surrogate motion data versus tumor motion data is evaluated. However, an internal–external motion correlation model is not utilized, i.e., prediction is solely driven by internal motion in both cases. Results: Similar prediction performance was achieved for training the model with external surrogate data versus internal (tumor motion) data. Adaptive model retraining can substantially boost performance in the case of external surrogate training while it has little impact for training with internal motion data. A minimum adaptive retraining data length of 8 s and history vector length of 3 s achieve maximal performance. Sampling frequency appears to have little impact on performance confirming previously published work. By using the linear predictor, a relative geometric 3D error reduction of about 50% was achieved (using adaptive retraining, a history vector length of 3 s and with results averaged over all investigated lookahead times and signal sampling frequencies). The absolute mean error could be reduced from (2.0 ± 1.6) mm when using no prediction at all to (0.9 ± 0.8) mm and (1.0 ± 0.9) mm when using the predictor trained with internal tumor motion training data and external surrogate motion training data, respectively (for a typical lookahead time of 250 ms and sampling frequency of 15 Hz). Conclusions: A linear prediction model can reduce latency induced tracking errors by an average of about 50% in real‐time image guided radiotherapy systems with system latencies of up to 300 ms. Training a linear model for lung tumor motion prediction with an external surrogate signal alone is feasible and results in similar performance as training with (internal) tumor motion. Particularly for scenarios where motion data are extracted from fluoroscopic imaging with ionizing radiation, this may alleviate the need for additional imaging dose during the collection of model training data.