Beam mask and sliding window‐facilitated deep learning‐based accurate and efficient dose prediction for pencil beam scanning proton therapy

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundAccurate and efficient dose calculation is essential for on‐line adaptive planning in proton therapy. Deep learning (DL) has shown promising dose prediction results in photon therapy. However, there is a scarcity of DL‐based dose prediction methods specifically designed for proton therapy. Successful dose prediction method for proton therapy should account for more challenging dose prediction problems in pencil beam scanning proton therapy (PBSPT) due to its sensitivity to heterogeneities.PurposeTo develop a DL‐based PBSPT dose prediction workflow with high accuracy and balanced complexity to support on‐line adaptive proton therapy clinical decision and subsequent replanning.MethodsPBSPT plans of 103 prostate cancer patients (93 for training and the other 10 for independent testing) and 83 lung cancer patients (73 for training and the other 10 for independent testing) previously treated at our institution were included in the study, each with computed tomography scans (CTs), structure sets, and plan doses calculated by the in‐house developed Monte‐Carlo dose engine (considered as the ground truth in the model training and testing). For the ablation study, we designed three experiments corresponding to the following three methods: (1) Experiment 1, the conventional region of interest (ROI) (composed of targets and organs‐at‐risk [OARs]) method. (2) Experiment 2, the beam mask (generated by raytracing of proton beams) method to improve proton dose prediction. (3) Experiment 3, the sliding window method for the model to focus on local details to further improve proton dose prediction. A fully connected 3D‐Unet was adopted as the backbone. Dose volume histogram (DVH) indices, 3D Gamma passing rates with a criterion of 3%/3 mm/10%, and dice coefficients for the structures enclosed by the iso‐dose lines between the predicted and the ground truth doses were used as the evaluation metrics. The calculation time for each proton dose prediction was recorded to evaluate the method's efficiency.ResultsCompared to the conventional ROI method, the beam mask method improved the agreement of DVH indices for both targets and OARs and the sliding window method further improved the agreement of the DVH indices (for lung cancer, CTV D98 absolute deviation: 0.74 ± 0.18 vs. 0.57 ± 0.21 vs. 0.54 ± 0.15 Gy[RBE], ROI vs. beam mask vs. sliding window methods, respectively). For the 3D Gamma passing rates in the target, OARs, and BODY (outside target and OARs), the beam mask method improved the passing rates in these regions and the sliding window method further improved them (for prostate cancer, targets: 96.93% ± 0.53% vs. 98.88% ± 0.49% vs. 99.97% ± 0.07%, BODY: 86.88% ± 0.74% vs. 93.21% ± 0.56% vs. 95.17% ± 0.59%). A similar trend was also observed for the dice coefficients. This trend was especially remarkable for relatively low prescription isodose lines (for lung cancer, 10% isodose line dice: 0.871 ± 0.027 vs. 0.911 ± 0.023 vs. 0.927 ± 0.017). The dose predictions for all the testing cases were completed within 0.25 s.ConclusionsAn accurate and efficient deep learning‐augmented proton dose prediction framework has been developed for PBSPT, which can predict accurate dose distributions not only inside but also outside ROI efficiently. The framework can potentially further reduce the initial planning and adaptive replanning workload in PBSPT.