DL-Dose Framework: Introducing a Fast Dose Calculation Engine for Radiotherapy-Based Deep Learning

Document Type : Original Paper

Authors

1 Department of Physics and Energy Engineering, Amir Kabir University of Technology, Iran

2 Radiation Oncology Research Centre, Cancer Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

10.22038/ijmp.2025.84901.2493

Abstract

Introduction: This study aimed to develop a dose prediction framework based on deep learning that utilizes water dose distribution and the characteristics of heterogeneous phantoms as inputs.
Material and Methods: A dataset of two hundred heterogeneous phantoms with identical geometry and variable bone and lung layer thicknesses was generated using the DOSXYZnrc Monte Carlo (MC) code. The thickness of each inhomogeneity was randomly assigned between 1 and 5 cm at different positions along the z-axis of the phantom. A deep learning–based dose prediction framework was then developed to estimate three-dimensional dose distributions. The model used five input channels, including water dose distribution, mass density, CT number, voxel distance from the radiation field center, and a binary radiation field mask. The network's output was the predicted dose distribution for each heterogeneous phantom.
Results: The accuracy of the predicted results by the DL-Dose Framework was evaluated against those obtained through the Monte Carlo method, using the delta index in heterogeneous phantoms. In the water medium, before encountering heterogeneities, 100% of the dose distribution for voxels with deviations of less than 1% from the maximum dose, consistent with the results measured by the MC method. Furthermore, 94.2% of the dose distribution for voxels in lung heterogeneity areas and 98.1% for voxels in bone heterogeneity regions were comparable to the MC method results, with deviations of less than 1% from the maximum dose.
Conclusion: The developed DL-Dose Framework can accurately predict dose distribution in heterogeneous phantoms.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Bengio, A. Courville, and P. Vincent, “Representation learning: A review and new perspectives,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 1798–1828, 2013, doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2013.50.
  2. Schmidhuber, “Deep Learning in neural networks: An overview,” Neural Networks, vol. 61, pp. 85–117, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.neunet.2014.09.003.
  3. Willems, W. Crijns, E. Sterpin, K. Haustermans, and F. Maes, “Feasibility of CT-only 3D dose prediction for VMAT prostate plans using deep learning,” Oct. 2019, pp. 10–17. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-32486-5_2.
  4. M. Barragán-Montero et al., “Three-dimensional dose prediction for lung IMRT patients with deep neural networks: robust learning from heterogeneous beam configurations,” Med. Phys., vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 3679–3691, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.1002/mp.13597.
  5. Nguyen et al., “3D radiotherapy dose prediction on head and neck cancer patients with a hierarchically densely connected U-net deep learning architecture,” Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 64, no. 6, 2019, doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/ab039b.
  6. Shiraishi and K. L. Moore, “Knowledge-based prediction of three-dimensional dose distributions for external beam radiotherapy,” Med. Phys., vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 378–387, Jan. 2016, doi: 10.1118/1.4938583.
  7. Tran et al., “Predicting liver SBRT eligibility and plan quality for VMAT and 4Π plans,” Radiat. Oncol., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 70–79, Apr. 2017, doi: 10.1186/s13014-017-0806-z.
  8. Wu et al., “Patient geometry-driven information retrieval for IMRT treatment plan quality control,” Med. Phys., vol. 36, no. 12, pp. 5497–5505, 2009, doi: 10.1118/1.3253464.
  9. Wu, D. Pang, P. Simari, R. Taylor, G. Sanguineti, and T. McNutt, “Using overlap volume histogram and IMRT plan data to guide and automate VMAT planning: A head-and-neck case study,” Med. Phys., vol. 40, no. 2, p. 021714, 2013, doi: 10.1118/1.4788671.
  10. Zhu, Y. Ge, T. Li, D. Thongphiew, F. F. Yin, and Q. J. Wu, “A planning quality evaluation tool for prostate adaptive IMRT based on machine learning,” Med. Phys., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 719–726, 2011, doi: 10.1118/1.3539749.
  11. Walters, I. Kawrakow, and D. W. O. Rogers, “DOSXYZnrc Users Manual,” Nrc Rep. Pirs, pp. 57–85, 2005.
  12. Mohan, C. Chui, and L. Lidofsky, “Differential pencil beam dose computation model for photons,” Med. Phys., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 64–73, 1986, doi: 10.1118/1.595924.
  13. Ö. Çiçek, A. Abdulkadir, S. S. Lienkamp, T. Brox, and O. Ronneberger, “3D U-net: Learning dense volumetric segmentation from sparse annotation,” in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 2016, vol. 9901 LNCS, pp. 424– doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-46723-8_49.
  14. Milletari, N. Navab, and S.-A. Ahmadi, “V-Net: Fully Convolutional Neural Networks for Volumetric Medical Image Segmentation,” Jun. 2016, [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.04797
  15. Nguyen, A. S. Barkousaraie, C. Shen, X. Jia, and S. Jiang, “Generating Pareto optimal dose distributions for radiation therapy treatment planning,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2019: 22nd International Conference, Shenzhen, China, October 13–17, 2019, Proceedings, Part VI 22, 2019, pp. 59–67.
  16. Nguyen et al., “A feasibility study for predicting optimal radiation therapy dose distributions of prostate cancer patients from patient anatomy using deep learning,” Sci. Rep., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1076–1086, 2019.
  17. and B. J. J. and B. A. L. and K. C. and K. E. and M. T. R. and S. M. and V. D. J. Papanikolaou, AAPM report 85:Tissue Inhomogeneity Corrections for Megavoltage Photon Beams. Report of the AAPM radiation therapy committee task group 65. AAPM Report No. 85, 2004. [Online]. Available: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:TISSUE+INHOMOGENEITY+CORRECTIONS+FOR+MEGAVOLTAGE+PHOTON+BEAMS#0
  18. Kanani and M. Padole, “Deep learning to detect skin cancer using google colab,” Int. J. Eng. Adv. Technol. Regul. Issue, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 2176–2183, 2019, doi: 10.35940/ijeat.F8587.088619.
  19. P. Kingma, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” arXiv Prepr. arXiv1412.6980, pp. 1–15, 2014.
  20. Caruana and S. Lawrence, “Overfitting in Neural Nets: Backpropagation, Conjugate Gradient, and Early Stopping,” Neural Inf. Process. Syst., vol. 13, pp. 402–408, 2001.
  21. Prechelt, “Automatic early stopping using cross validation: quantifying the criteria,” Neural networks, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 761–767, 1998.
  22. [22] A. Low, W. B. Harms, S. Mutic, and J. A. Purdy, “A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions,” Med. Phys., vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 656–661, May 1998.
  23. Mentzel et al., “Accurate and Fast Deep Learning Dose Prediction for a Preclinical Microbeam Radiation Therapy Study Using Low-Statistics Monte Carlo Simulations,” Cancers (Basel)., vol. 15, no. 7, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.3390/cancers15072137.
  24. D. J. Fraass B, Doppke K, Hunt M, Kutcher G, Starkschall G, Stern R, “American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning,” Med. Phys., vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 1773–1829, Oct. 1998.
  25. Physics et al., “AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5 . a .: Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations — Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams,” vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 14–34, 2015.
  26. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), “‘Commissioning and quality assurance of computerized planning systems for radiation treatment of cancer’, Technical Reports Series, TRS-430,” At. Energy Agency, Tech. Rep. Ser., no. 430, pp. 1–281, 2004.
  27. A. Ezzell et al., “IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119,” Med. Phys., vol. 36, no. 11, pp. 5359–5373, 2009, doi: 10.1118/1.3238104.
  28. A. Low, J. M. Moran, J. F. Dempsey, L. Dong, and M. Oldham, “Dosimetry tools and techniques for IMRT,” Med. Phys., vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 1313–1338, 2011, doi: 10.1118/1.3514120.
  29. M. Abdulbaqi, S. S. Abdullah, H. H. Alabed, N. M. Alazawy, M. J. Al-Musawi, and A. F. Heydar, “The Correlation of Total MU Number and Percentage Dosimetric Error in Step and Shoot IMRT with Gamma Passing Rate Using OCTAVIUS 4D-1500 Detector Phantom,” Ann. Trop. Med. Public Heal., vol. 23, no. 19, 2020, doi: 10.36295/asro.2020.232126.
  30. K. Templeton, J. C. H. Chu, and J. V. Turian, “The sensitivity of ArcCHECK-based gamma analysis to manufactured errors in helical tomotherapy radiation delivery,” J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 32–39, 2015, doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v16i1.4814.
  31. E. Nelms et al., “Evaluating IMRT and VMAT dose accuracy: Practical examples of failure to detect systematic errors when applying a commonly used metric and action levels,” Med. Phys., vol. 40, no. 11, 2013, doi: 10.1118/1.4826166.
  32. Vieillevigne, J. Molinier, T. Brun, and R. Ferrand, “Gamma index comparison of three VMAT QA systems and evaluation of their sensitivity to delivery errors,” Phys. Medica, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 720–725, Nov. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.05.016.
  33. Miften et al., “Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement-based verification QA: Recommendations of AAPM Task Group No. 218,” Med. Phys., vol. 45, no. 4, pp. e53–e83, 2018, doi: 10.1002/mp.12810.
  34. Nguyen et al., “Dose Prediction with U-net: A Feasibility Study for Predicting Dose Distributions from Contours using Deep Learning on Prostate IMRT Patients,” arXiv Prepr. arXiv1709.09233, vol. 17, 2017.
  35. Kearney, J. W. Chan, S. Haaf, M. Descovich, and T. D. Solberg, “DoseNet: A volumetric dose prediction algorithm using 3D fully-convolutional neural networks,” Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 63, no. 23, p. 235022, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/aaef74.

 

 

 

 

 

Iranian Journal of Medical Physics
Volume 23, Issue 1
January and February 2026
Pages 26-37

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 02 January 2025
  • Revise Date: 02 August 2025
  • Accept Date: 05 October 2025

Share

How to cite

Statistics