Dataset Information

Beam data modeling of linear accelerators (linacs) through machine learning and its potential applications in fast and robust linac commissioning and quality assurance.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

To propose a novel machine learning-based method for reliable and accurate modeling of linac beam data applicable to the processes of linac commissioning and QA.

Materials and methods

We hypothesize that the beam data is a function of inherent linac features and percentage depth doses (PDDs) and profiles of different field sizes are correlated with each other. The correlation is formulated as a multivariable regression problem using a machine learning framework. Varian TrueBeam beam data sets (n = 43) acquired from multiple institutions were used to evaluate the framework. The data sets included PDDs and profiles across different energies and field sizes. A multivariate regression model was trained for prediction of beam specific PDDs and profiles of different field sizes using a 10 × 10 cm² field as input.

Results

Predictions of PDDs were achieved with a mean absolute percent relative error (%RE) of 0.19-0.35% across the different beam energies investigated. The maximum mean absolute %RE was 0.93%. For profile prediction, the mean absolute %RE was 0.66-0.93% with a maximum absolute %RE of 3.76%. The largest uncertainties in the PDD and profile predictions were found at the build-up region and at the field penumbra, respectively. The prediction accuracy increased with the number of training sets up to around 20 training sets.

Conclusions

Through this novel machine learning-based method we have shown accurate and reproducible generation of beam data for linac commissioning for routine radiation therapy. This method has the potential to simplify the linac commissioning procedure, save time and manpower while increasing the accuracy of the commissioning process.

SUBMITTER: Zhao W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7750276 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Performing mechanical and geometric quality assurance (QA) tests for medical linear accelerators (LINAC) is a predominantly manual process that consumes significant time and resources. In order to alleviate this burden this study proposes a novel strategy to automate the process of performing these tests. The autonomous QA system consists of three parts: (1) a customized phantom coated with radioluminescent material; (2) an optical imaging system capable of visualizing the incidence of the radiation beam, light field or lasers on the phantom; and (3) software to process the captured signals. The radioluminescent phantom, which enables visualization of the radiation beam on the same surface as the light field and lasers, is placed on the couch and imaged while a predefined treatment plan is delivered from the LINAC. The captured images are then processed to self-calibrate the system and perform measurements for evaluating light field/radiation coincidence, jaw position indicators, cross-hair centering, treatment couch position indicators and localizing laser alignment. System accuracy is probed by intentionally introducing errors and by comparing with current clinical methods. The accuracy of self-calibration is evaluated by examining measurement repeatability under fixed and variable phantom setups. The integrated system was able to automatically collect, analyze and report the results for the mechanical alignment tests specified by TG-142. The average difference between introduced and measured errors was 0.13 mm. The system was shown to be consistent with current techniques. Measurement variability increased slightly from 0.1 mm to 0.2 mm when the phantom setup was varied, but no significant difference in the mean measurement value was detected. Total measurement time was less than 10 minutes for all tests as a result of automation. The system's unique features of a phosphor-coated phantom and fully automated, operator independent self-calibration offer the potential to streamline the QA process for modern LINACs.

Project description:PurposeTo better meet clinical needs and facilitate optimal treatment planning, we added two new electron energy beams (7 and 11 MeV) to two Varian TrueBeam linacs.MethodsWe worked with the vendor to create two additional customized electron energies without hardware modifications. For each beam, we set the bending magnet current and then optimized other beam-specific parameters to achieve depths of 50% ionization (I50 ) of 2.9 cm for 7 MeV and 4.2 cm for the 11 MeV beam with the 15 × 15 cm2 cone at 100 cm source-to-surface distance (SSD) by using an ionization chamber profiler (ICP) with a double-wedge (DW) phantom. Beams were steered and balanced to optimize symmetry with the ICP. After all parameters were set, full commissioning was done including measuring beam profiles, percent depth doses (PDDs), output factors (OFs) at standard, and extended SSDs. Measured data were compared between the two linacs and against the values calculated by our RayStation treatment planning system (TPS) following Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.a (MPPG 5.a) guidelines.ResultsThe I50 values initially determined with the ICP/DW agreed with those from a PDD-scanned in-water phantom within 0.2 mm for the 7 and 11 MeV on both linacs. Comparison of the beam characteristics from the two linacs indicated that flatness and symmetry agreed within 0.4%, and point-by-point differences in PDD were within 0.01% ± 0.3% for the 7 MeV and 0.01% ± 0.3% for the 11 MeV. The OF ratios between the two linacs were 1.000 ± 0.007 for the 7 MeV and 1.004 ± 0.007 for the 11 MeV. Agreement between TPS-calculated outputs and measurements were -0.1% ± 1.0% for the 7 MeV and 0.2% ± 0.8% for the 11 MeV. All other parameters met the MPPG 5.a's 3%/3-mm criteria.ConclusionWe were able to add two new beam energies with no hardware modifications. Tuning of the new beams was facilitated by the ICP/DW system allowing us to have the procedures done in a few hours and achieve highly consistent results across two linacs. PACS numbers: 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc.

Project description:Recent developments in modern computational accelerators like Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) and coprocessors provide great opportunities for making scientific applications run faster than ever before. However, efficient parallelization of scientific code using new programming tools like CUDA requires a high level of expertise that is not available to many scientists. This, plus the fact that parallelized code is usually not portable to different architectures, creates major challenges for exploiting the full capabilities of modern computational accelerators. In this work, we sought to overcome these challenges by studying how to achieve both automated parallelization using OpenACC and enhanced portability using OpenCL. We applied our parallelization schemes using GPUs as well as Intel Many Integrated Core (MIC) coprocessor to reduce the run time of wave propagation simulations. We used a well-established 2D cardiac action potential model as a specific case-study. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to study auto-parallelization of 2D cardiac wave propagation simulations using OpenACC. Our results identify several approaches that provide substantial speedups. The OpenACC-generated GPU code achieved more than 150x speedup above the sequential implementation and required the addition of only a few OpenACC pragmas to the code. An OpenCL implementation provided speedups on GPUs of at least 200x faster than the sequential implementation and 30x faster than a parallelized OpenMP implementation. An implementation of OpenMP on Intel MIC coprocessor provided speedups of 120x with only a few code changes to the sequential implementation. We highlight that OpenACC provides an automatic, efficient, and portable approach to achieve parallelization of 2D cardiac wave simulations on GPUs. Our approach of using OpenACC, OpenCL, and OpenMP to parallelize this particular model on modern computational accelerators should be applicable to other computational models of wave propagation in multi-dimensional media.

Project description:Accurate beam data acquisition during commissioning is essential for modeling the treatment planning system and dose calculation in radiotherapy. Although currently several commercial scanning systems are available, there is no report that compared the differences among the systems because most institutions do not acquire several scanning systems due to the high cost, storage space, and infrequent usage. In this report, we demonstrate the intra- and intervariability of beam profiles measured with four commercial scanning systems. During a recent educational and training workshop, four different vendors of beam scanning water phantoms were invited to demonstrate the operation and data collection of their systems. Systems were set up utilizing vendor-recommended protocols and were operated with a senior physicist, who was assigned as an instructor along with vendor. During the training sessions, each group was asked to measure beam parameters, and the intravariability in percent depth dose (PDD). At the end of the day, the profile of one linear accelerator was measured with each system to evaluate intervariability. Relatively very small (SD < 0.12%) intervariability in PDD was observed among four systems at a region deeper than peak (1.5 cm). All systems showed almost identical profiles. At the area within 80% of radiation field, the average, and maximum differences were within ± 0.35% and 0.80%, respectively, compared to arbitrarily chosen IBA system as reference. In the penumbrae region, the distance to agreement (DTA) of the region where dose difference exceed ± 1% was less than 1 mm. Repeated PDD measurement showed small intravariability with SD < 0.5%, although large SD was observed in the buildup region. All four water phantom scanning systems demonstrated adequate accuracy for beam data collection (i.e., within 1% of dose difference or 1 mm of DTA among each other). It is concluded that every system is capable of acquiring accurate beam. Thus the selection of a water scanning system should be based on institutional comfort, personal preference of software and hardware, and financial consideration.