Comparing Unet training with three different datasets to correct CBCT images for prostate radiotherapy dose calculations. (24th January 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Landry, Guillaume; Hansen, David; Kamp, Florian; Li, Minglun; Hoyle, Ben; Weller, Jochen; Parodi, Katia; Belka, Claus; Kurz, Christopher
• Is Part Of: Physics in medicine & biology. Volume 64:Number 3(2019:Feb.)
• Publication Date: 2019-01-24
• Subjects: CBCT -- Unet -- deep learning -- scatter correction -- VMAT -- PBS -- proton therapy; Biophysics -- Periodicals; Medical physics -- Periodicals; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aaf496
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0031-9155

Abstract

Abstract: Image intensity correction is crucial to enable cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) based radiotherapy dose calculations. This study evaluated three different deep learning based correction methods using a U-shaped convolutional neural network architecture (Unet) in terms of their photon and proton dose calculation accuracy. CT and CBCT imaging data of 42 prostate cancer patients were included. For target ground truth data generation, a CBCT correction method based on CT to CBCT deformable image registration (DIR) was used. The method yields a deformed CT called (i) virtual CT (vCT) which is used to generate (ii) corrected CBCT projections allowing the reconstruction of (iii) a final corrected CBCT image. The single Unet architecture was trained using these three different datasets: (Unet1) raw and corrected CBCT projections, (Unet2) raw CBCT and vCT image slices and (Unet3) raw and reference corrected CBCT image slices. Volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) and proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) single field uniform dose (SFUD) plans were optimized on the reference corrected image and recalculated on the obtained Unet-corrected CBCT images. The mean error (ME) and mean absolute error (MAE) for Unet1/2/3 were Hounsfield units (HU) and HU. The 1% dose difference pass rates were better than 98.4% for VMAT for 8 test patients not seen during training, with little difference between Unets. Gamma evaluation results were even better. For protons a gamma evaluation was employed to account for small range shifts, and mm pass rates for Unet1/2/3 were better than and 91%. A 3 mm range difference threshold was established. Only for Unet3 the 5th and 95th percentiles of the range difference distributions over all fields, test patients and dose profiles were within this threshold. A single Unet architecture was successfully trained using both CBCT projections and CBCT image slices. Since the results of the other Unets were poorer than Unet3, we conclude that training using corrected CBCT image slices as target data is optimal for PBS SFUD proton dose calculations, while for VMAT all Unets provided sufficient accuracy.