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

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 10x10cm2 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.

[1]  D W O Rogers,et al.  Which accelerator photon beams are "clinic-like" for reference dosimetry purposes? , 2003, Medical physics.

[2]  L Cozzi,et al.  Technical Note: Flattening filter free beam from Halcyon linac: evaluation of the profile parameters for quality assurance. , 2020, Medical physics.

[3]  Qiongge Li,et al.  Predictive time‐series modeling using artificial neural networks for Linac beam symmetry: an empirical study , 2017, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[4]  Gaël Varoquaux,et al.  Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python , 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[5]  Jacques Ferlay,et al.  Global Access to Radiotherapy Services: Have We Made Progress During the Past Decade? , 2016, Journal of global oncology.

[6]  T. Zhu,et al.  Accelerator beam data commissioning equipment and procedures: Report of the TG-106 of the Therapy Physics Committee of the AAPM. , 2008, Medical physics.

[7]  Masaru Isono,et al.  Do the representative beam data for TrueBeam™ linear accelerators represent average data? , 2019, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[8]  Peter Balter,et al.  Experience in commissioning The Halcyon linac. , 2019, Medical physics.

[9]  Colin G Orton,et al.  Point/counterpoint: vendor provided machine data should never be used as a substitute for fully commissioning a linear accelerator. , 2012, Medical physics.

[10]  Roberto Orecchia,et al.  Design and commissioning of the non‐dedicated scanning proton beamline for ocular treatment at the synchrotron‐based CNAO facility , 2019, Medical physics.

[11]  P. Tsiamas,et al.  Development, commissioning, and evaluation of a new intensity modulated minibeam proton therapy system , 2018, Medical physics.

[12]  M Tariquzzaman,et al.  Photon beam commissioning of an Elekta Synergy linear accelerator , 2017 .

[13]  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.

[14]  Radiotherapy toxicity , 2019, Nature Reviews Disease Primers.

[15]  Niko Papanikolaou,et al.  Commissioning an Elekta Versa HD linear accelerator , 2016, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[16]  A Kosunen,et al.  Beam quality specification for photon beam dosimetry. , 1993, Medical physics.

[17]  T Solberg,et al.  Commissioning of the Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator: a multi-institutional study. , 2013, Medical physics.

[18]  Gilmer Valdes,et al.  Integration of AI and Machine Learning in Radiotherapy QA , 2020, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence.

[19]  Paul Keall,et al.  Development and commissioning of a full‐size prototype fixed‐beam radiotherapy system with horizontal patient rotation , 2019, Medical physics.

[20]  Colin G Orton,et al.  Point/counterpoint. Radiotherapy physicists have become glorified technicians rather than clinical scientists. , 2010, Medical physics.

[21]  David S Followill,et al.  Challenges in credentialing institutions and participants in advanced technology multi-institutional clinical trials. , 2008, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[22]  Michael Baumann,et al.  Expanding global access to radiotherapy. , 2015, The Lancet. Oncology.

[23]  P D LaRiviere,et al.  The quality of high-energy X-ray beams. , 1989, The British journal of radiology.

[24]  S. Bentzen Preventing or reducing late side effects of radiation therapy: radiobiology meets molecular pathology , 2006, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[25]  Gloria P. Beyer,et al.  Commissioning measurements for photon beam data on three TrueBeam linear accelerators, and comparison with Trilogy and Clinac 2100 linear accelerators , 2013, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[26]  Nabil Adnani,et al.  Design and clinical implementation of a TG‐106 compliant linear accelerator data management system and MU calculator , 2010, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[27]  Hui Yan,et al.  Commissioning and dosimetric characteristics of TrueBeam system: composite data of three TrueBeam machines. , 2012, Medical physics.

[28]  Dwight E Heron,et al.  Application of TG‐100 risk analysis methods to the acceptance testing and commissioning process of a Halcyon linear accelerator , 2019, Medical physics.

[29]  A. Jemal,et al.  Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2016 , 2016, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[30]  Fang-Fang Yin,et al.  Task Group 142 report: quality assurance of medical accelerators. , 2009, Medical physics.

[31]  B Mijnheer,et al.  Tolerances for the accuracy of photon beam dose calculations of treatment planning systems. , 2001, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[32]  David S Followill,et al.  Independent recalculation outperforms traditional measurement-based IMRT QA methods in detecting unacceptable plans. , 2019, Medical physics.

[33]  D. Rogers,et al.  AAPM's TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams. , 1999, Medical physics.

[34]  Yolande Lievens,et al.  Cost evaluation to optimise radiation therapy implementation in different income settings: A time-driven activity-based analysis. , 2017, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[35]  Sasa Mutic,et al.  The report of Task Group 100 of the AAPM: Application of risk analysis methods to radiation therapy quality management. , 2016, Medical physics.

[36]  J. Seuntjens,et al.  Ionization chamber-based reference dosimetry of intensity modulated radiation beams. , 2004, Medical physics.

[37]  C. Njeh,et al.  Tumor delineation: The weakest link in the search for accuracy in radiotherapy , 2008, Journal of medical physics.

[38]  D. Low,et al.  A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. , 1998, Medical physics.