A convolutional neural network approach for IMRT dose distribution prediction in prostate cancer patients. (19th July 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kajikawa, Tomohiro; Kadoya, Noriyuki; Ito, Kengo; Takayama, Yoshiki; Chiba, Takahito; Tomori, Seiji; Nemoto, Hikaru; Dobashi, Suguru; Takeda, Ken; Jingu, Keiichi
• Is Part Of: Journal of radiation research. Volume 60:Number 5(2019:Sep.)
• Page Start: 685
• Page End: 693
• Publication Date: 2019-07-19
• Subjects: deep learning -- convolutional neural network -- radiation therapy -- intensity-modulated radiation therapy -- dose prediction -- prostate cancer; Radiology, Medical -- Periodicals; Radiobiology -- Periodicals; Radiation -- Periodicals; 616.0757
• DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rrz051
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0449-3060

Abstract

Abstract: The purpose of the study was to compare a 3D convolutional neural network (CNN) with the conventional machine learning method for predicting intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) dose distribution using only contours in prostate cancer. In this study, which included 95 IMRT-treated prostate cancer patients with available dose distributions and contours for planning target volume (PTVs) and organs at risk (OARs), a supervised-learning approach was used for training, where the dose for a voxel set in the dataset was defined as the label. The adaptive moment estimation algorithm was employed for optimizing a 3D U-net similar network. Eighty cases were used for the training and validation set in 5-fold cross-validation, and the remaining 15 cases were used as the test set. The predicted dose distributions were compared with the clinical dose distributions, and the model performance was evaluated by comparison with RapidPlan™. Dose–volume histogram (DVH) parameters were calculated for each contour as evaluation indexes. The mean absolute errors (MAE) with one standard deviation (1SD) between the clinical and CNN-predicted doses were 1.10% ± 0.64%, 2.50% ± 1.17%, 2.04% ± 1.40%, and 2.08% ± 1.99% for D2, D98 in PTV-1 and V65 in rectum and V65 in bladder, respectively, whereas the MAEs with 1SD between the clinical and the RapidPlan™-generated doses were 1.01% ± 0.66%, 2.15% ± 1.25%, 5.34% ± 2.13% and 3.04% ± 1.79%, respectively. Our CNN model could predict dose distributions that were superior or comparable with that generated by RapidPlan™, suggesting the potential of CNN in dose distribution prediction.