Gantry angle classification with a fluence map in intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cases using machine learning

Open access

Abstract

We investigated the gantry-angle classifier performance with a fluence map using three machine-learning algorithms, and compared it with human performance. Eighty prostate cases were investigated using a seven-field-intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment (IMRT) plan with beam angles of 0°, 50°, 100°, 155°, 205°, 260°, and 310°. The k-nearest neighbor (k-NN), logistic regression (LR), and support vector machine (SVM) algorithms were used. In the observer test, three radiotherapists assessed the gantry angle classification in a blind manner. The precision and recall rates were calculated for the machine learning and observer test. The average precision rate of the k-NN and LR algorithms were 94.8% and 97.9%, respectively. The average recall rate of the k-NN and LR algorithms were 94.3% and 97.9%, respectively. The SVM had 100% precision and recall rates. The gantry angles of 0°, 155°, and 205° had an accuracy of 100% in all algorithms. In the observer test, average precision and recall rates were 82.6% and 82.6%, respectively. All observers could easily classify the gantry angles of 0°, 155°, and 205° with a high degree of accuracy. Misclassifications occurred in gantry angles of 50°, 100°, 260°, and 310°. Machine learning could better classify gantry angles for prostate IMRT than human beings. In particular, the SVM algorithm had a perfect classification of 100%.

[1] Garapati SS, Hadjiiski L, Cha KH, et al. Urinary bladder cancer staging in CT urography using machine learning. Med Phys. 2017;44(11):5814-5823.

[2] Zhu X, Ge Y, Li T, et al. A planning quality evaluation tool for prostate adaptive IMRT based on machine learning. Med Phys. 2011;38(2):719-726.

[3] Carlson JN, Park JM, Park SY, et al. A machine learning approach to the accurate prediction of multi-leaf collimator positional errors. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61(6):2514-2531.

[4] Zhu X, Ge Y, Li T, et al. A planning quality evaluation tool for prostate adaptive IMRT based on machine learning. Med Phys. 2011;38(2):719-26.

[5] Chanyavanich V, Das SK, Lee WR, et al. Knowledge based IMRT treatment planning for prostate cancer. Med Phys. 2011;38(5):2515-2522.

[6] Wang G, Kalra M, Orton CG. Machine learning will transform radiology significantly within the next 5 years. Med Phys. 2017;44(6):2041-2044.

[7] Michalski JM, Yan Y, Watkins-Bruner D, et al. Preliminary toxicity analysis of 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy versus intensity modulated radiation therapy on the high-dose arm of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0126 prostate cancer trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;87(5):932-938.

[8] Jursinic PA, Nelms BE. A 2-D diode array and analysis software for verification of intensity modulated radiation therapy delivery. Med Phys. 2003;30(5):870-879.

[9] van Zijtveld M, Dirkx ML, de Boer HC, et al. Dosimetric pre-treatment verification of IMRT using an EPID; clinical experience. Radiother Oncol. 2006;81(2):168-175.

[10] Kamino Y, Takayama K, Kokubo M, et al. Development of a four-dimensional image-guided radiotherapy system with a gimbaled X-ray head. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;66(1):271-278.

[11] Chen S, Zhou S, Yin FF, et al. Investigation of the support vector machine algorithm to predict lung radiation-induced pneumonitis. Med Phys. 2007;34(1):3808-3814.

[12] Klement RJ, Allgäuer M, Appold S, et al. Support vector machine-based prediction of local tumor control after stereotactic body radiation therapy for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;88(3):732-738.

Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering

The Journal of Polish Society of Medical Physics

Journal Information


CiteScore 2017: 0.19
ICV 2017 = 103.49

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.104
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.233

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 51 51 22
PDF Downloads 39 39 20