Predictive time‐series modeling using artificial neural networks for Linac beam symmetry: an empirical study

Over half of cancer patients receive radiotherapy (RT) as partial or full cancer treatment. Daily quality assurance (QA) of RT in cancer treatment closely monitors the performance of the medical linear accelerator (Linac) and is critical for continuous improvement of patient safety and quality of care. Cumulative longitudinal QA measurements are valuable for understanding the behavior of the Linac and allow physicists to identify trends in the output and take preventive actions. In this study, artificial neural networks (ANNs) and autoregressive moving average (ARMA) time‐series prediction modeling techniques were both applied to 5‐year daily Linac QA data. Verification tests and other evaluations were then performed for all models. Preliminary results showed that ANN time‐series predictive modeling has more advantages over ARMA techniques for accurate and effective applicability in the dosimetry and QA field.

[1]  Martin J. Murphy,et al.  Machine Learning in Radiation Oncology , 2015 .

[2]  Margie A Hunt,et al.  The impact of new technologies on radiation oncology events and trends in the past decade: an institutional experience. , 2012, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[3]  Satoshi Ishikura,et al.  Quality assurance of radiotherapy in cancer treatment: toward improvement of patient safety and quality of care. , 2008, Japanese journal of clinical oncology.

[4]  Robert J. Shalek,et al.  Physical Aspects of Quality Assurance in Radiation Therapy , 1984 .

[5]  T. U. Uddin,et al.  QUALITY CONTROL OF MODERN LINEAR ACCELERATOR: DOSE STABILITY LONG AND SHORT-TERM , 2012 .

[6]  Neil Davey,et al.  Time Series Prediction and Neural Networks , 2001, J. Intell. Robotic Syst..

[7]  Joseph O. Deasy,et al.  Visual Analysis of the Daily QA Results of Photon and Electron Beams of a Trilogy Linac over a Five-year Period , 2015, International journal of medical physics, clinical engineering and radiation oncology.

[8]  Daniel Letourneau,et al.  SU‐E‐T‐136: Assessment of Seasonal Linear Accelerator Output Variations and Associated Impacts , 2015 .

[9]  T D Solberg,et al.  A mathematical framework for virtual IMRT QA using machine learning. , 2016, Medical physics.

[10]  Ruijiang Li,et al.  Machine learning in radiation oncology : theory and applications , 2015 .

[11]  Michael Y. Hu,et al.  Forecasting with artificial neural networks: The state of the art , 1997 .

[12]  R. K. Agrawal,et al.  An Introductory Study on Time Series Modeling and Forecasting , 2013, ArXiv.

[13]  Tugba Taskaya-Temizel,et al.  2005 Special Issue: A comparative study of autoregressive neural network hybrids , 2005 .

[14]  David A. Jaffray,et al.  Radiation Therapy for Cancer , 2015 .

[15]  Victor L. Berardi,et al.  Time series forecasting with neural network ensembles: an application for exchange rate prediction , 2001, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[16]  T. K. Yeung,et al.  Quality assurance in radiotherapy: evaluation of errors and incidents recorded over a 10 year period. , 2005, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[17]  M W D Grattan,et al.  Analysis of output trends from Varian 2100C/D and 600C/D accelerators , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[18]  E H KIM,et al.  [Radiation therapy for cancer]. , 1963, Taehan Uihak Hyophoe chi. The Journal of the Korean Medical Association.

[19]  Sasa Mutic,et al.  Quality control quantification (QCQ): a tool to measure the value of quality control checks in radiation oncology. , 2012, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[20]  Guoqiang Peter Zhang,et al.  Avoiding Pitfalls in Neural Network Research , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews).