Search

The past decade has seen the increasing integration of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging into radiation therapy (RT). This growth can be contributed to multiple factors, including hardware and software advances that have allowed the acquisition of high-resolution volumetric data of RT patients in their treatment position (also known as MR simulation) and the development of methods to image and quantify tissue function and response to therapy. More recently, the advent of MR-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) - achieved through the integration of MR imaging systems and linear accelerators - has further accelerated this trend. As MR imaging in RT techniques and technologies, such as MRgRT, gain regulatory approval worldwide, these systems will begin to propagate beyond tertiary care academic medical centers and into more community-based health systems and hospitals, creating new opportunities to provide advanced treatment options to a broader patient population. Accompanying these opportunities are unique challenges related to their adaptation, adoption, and use including modification of hardware and software to meet the unique and distinct demands of MR imaging in RT, the need for standardization of imaging techniques and protocols, education of the broader RT community (particularly in regards to MR safety) as well as the need to continue and support research, and development in this space. In response to this, an ad hoc committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) was formed to identify the unmet needs, roadblocks, and opportunities within this space. The purpose of this document is to report on the major findings and recommendations identified. Importantly, the provided recommendations represent the consensus opinions of the committee's membership, which were submitted in the committee's report to the AAPM Board of Directors. In addition, AAPM ad hoc committee reports differ from AAPM task group reports in that ad hoc committee reports are neither reviewed nor ultimately approved by the committee's parent groups, including at the council and executive committee level. Thus, the recommendations given in this summary should not be construed as being endorsed by or official recommendations from the AAPM.

Background: For autosegmentation models, the data used to train the model (e.g., public datasets and/or vendor‐collected data) and the data on which the model is deployed in the clinic are typically not the same, potentially impacting the performance of these models by a process called domain shift. Tools to routinely monitor and predict segmentation performance are needed for quality assurance. Here, we develop an approach to perform such monitoring and performance prediction for cardiac substructure segmentation. Purpose: To develop a quality assurance (QA) framework for routine or continuous monitoring of domain shift and the performance of cardiac substructure autosegmentation algorithms. Methods: A benchmark dataset consisting of computed tomography (CT) images along with manual cardiac substructure delineations of 241 breast cancer radiotherapy patients were collected, including one "normal" image domain of clean images and five "abnormal" domains containing images with artifact (metal, contrast), pathology, or quality variations due to scanner protocol differences (field of view, noise, reconstruction kernel, and slice thickness). The QA framework consisted of an image domain shift detector which operated on the input CT images and a shape quality detector on the output of an autosegmentation model, and a regression model for predicting autosegmentation model performance. The image domain shift detector was composed of a trained denoising autoencoder (DAE) and two hand‐engineered image quality features to detect normal versus abnormal domains in the input CT images. The shape quality detector was a variational autoencoder (VAE) trained to estimate the shape quality of the auto‐segmentation results. The output from the image domain shift and shape quality detectors was used to train a regression model to predict the per‐patient segmentation accuracy, measured by Dice coefficient similarity (DSC) to physician contours. Different regression techniques were investigated including linear regression, Bagging, Gaussian process regression, random forest, and gradient boost regression. Of the 241 patients, 60 were used to train the autosegmentation models, 120 for training the QA framework, and the remaining 61 for testing the QA framework. A total of 19 autosegmentation models were used to evaluate QA framework performance, including 18 convolutional neural network (CNN)‐based and one transformer‐based model. Results: When tested on the benchmark dataset, all abnormal domains resulted in a significant DSC decrease relative to the normal domain for CNN models (p<0.001$p < 0.001$), but only for some domains for the transformer model. No significant relationship was found between the performance of an autosegmentation model and scanner protocol parameters (p=0.42$p = 0.42$) except noise (p=0.01$p = 0.01$). CNN‐based autosegmentation models demonstrated a decreased DSC ranging from 0.07 to 0.41 with added noise, while the transformer‐based model was not significantly affected (ANOVA, p=0.99$p=0.99$). For the QA framework, linear regression models with bootstrap aggregation resulted in the highest mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.041±0.002$0.041 \pm 0.002$, in predicted DSC (relative to true DSC between autosegmentation and physician). MAE was lowest when combining both input (image) detectors and output (shape) detectors compared to output detectors alone. Conclusions: A QA framework was able to predict cardiac substructure autosegmentation model performance for clinically anticipated "abnormal" domain shifts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Motion-compensated (MoCo) reconstruction shows great promise in improving four-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography (4DCBCT) image quality. MoCo reconstruction for a 4D-CBCT could be more accurate using motion information at the CBCT imaging time than that obtained from previous 4D-CT scans. However, such data-driven approaches are hampered by the quality of initial 4D-CBCT images used for motion modeling. Purpose: This study aims to develop a deep-learning method to generate highquality motion models for MoCo reconstruction to improve the quality of final 4D-CBCT images. Methods: A 3D artifact-reduction convolutional neural network (CNN) was proposed to improve conventional phase-correlated Feldkamp-Davis-Kress (PCF) reconstructions by reducing undersampling-induced streaking artifacts while maintaining motion information. The CNN-generated artifact-mitigated 4D-CBCT images (CNN enhanced) were then used to build a motion model which was used by MoCo reconstruction (CNN+MoCo). The proposed procedure was evaluated using in-vivo patient datasets, an extended cardiac-torso (XCAT) phantom, and the public SPARE challenge datasets. The quality of reconstructed images for XCAT phantom and SPARE datasets was quantitatively assessed using root-mean-square-error (RMSE) and normalized cross-correlation (NCC). Results: The trained CNN effectively reduced the streaking artifacts of PCF CBCT images for all datasets. More detailed structures can be recovered using the proposed CNN+MoCo reconstruction procedure. XCAT phantom experiments showed that the accuracy of estimated motion model using CNN enhanced images was greatly improved over PCF. CNN+MoCo showed lower RMSE and higher NCC compared to PCF, CNN enhanced and conventional MoCo. For the SPARE datasets, the average (± standard deviation) RMSE in mm-1 for body region of PCF, CNN enhanced, conventional MoCo and CNN+MoCo were 0.0040 ± 0.0009, 0.0029 ± 0.0002, 0.0024 ± 0.0003 and 0.0021 ± 0.0003. Corresponding NCC were 0.84 ± 0.05, 0.91 ± 0.05, 0.91 ± 0.05 and 0.93 ± 0.04. Conclusions: CNN-based artifact reduction can substantially reduce the artifacts in the initial 4D-CBCT images. The improved images could be used to enhance the motion modeling and ultimately improve the quality of the final 4D-CBCT images reconstructed using MoCo. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]