Premium
SU‐F‐J‐199: Predictive Models for Cone Beam CT‐Based Online Verification of Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy
Author(s) -
Yin L,
Janssens G,
Lin A,
Ahn P,
Solberg T,
McDonough J,
Teo B
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4956107
Subject(s) - proton therapy , cone beam computed tomography , nuclear medicine , pencil beam scanning , image registration , cone beam ct , pencil (optics) , mathematics , principal component analysis , head and neck , image guided radiation therapy , medicine , medical imaging , computed tomography , artificial intelligence , radiation therapy , computer science , radiology , statistics , physics , image (mathematics) , optics , surgery
Purpose: To utilize online CBCT scans to develop models for predicting DVH metrics in proton therapy of head and neck tumors. Methods: Nine patients with locally advanced oropharyngeal cancer were retrospectively selected in this study. Deformable image registration was applied to the simulation CT, target volumes, and organs at risk (OARs) contours onto each weekly CBCT scan. Intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatment plans were created on the simulation CT and forward calculated onto each corrected CBCT scan. Thirty six potentially predictive metrics were extracted from each corrected CBCT. These features include minimum/maximum/mean over and under‐ranges at the proximal and distal surface of PTV volumes, and geometrical and water equivalent distance between PTV and each OARs. Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to reduce the dimension of the extracted features. Three principal components were found to account for over 90% of variances in those features. Datasets from eight patients were used to train a machine learning model to fit these principal components with DVH metrics (dose to 95% and 5% of PTV, mean dose or max dose to OARs) from the forward calculated dose on each corrected CBCT. The accuracy of this model was verified on the datasets from the 9th patient. Results: The predicted changes of DVH metrics from the model were in good agreement with actual values calculated on corrected CBCT images. Median differences were within 1 Gy for most DVH metrics except for larynx and constrictor mean dose. However, a large spread of the differences was observed, indicating additional training datasets and predictive features are needed to improve the model. Conclusion: Intensity corrected CBCT scans hold the potential to be used for online verification of proton therapy and prediction of delivered dose distributions.