<p>This study aimed to integrate Monte Carlo&#xa0;(MC) simulation with deep learning&#xa0;(DL)-based denoising techniques to achieve fast and accurate prediction of high-quality electronic portal imaging device (EPID) transmission dose (TD) for patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA). A total of 100 lung cases were used to obtain the noisy EPID TD by the ARCHER MC code under four kinds of particle numbers (<InlineEquation ID="IEq1"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(1\times 10^6\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mn>1</mn> <mo>×</mo> <msup> <mn>10</mn> <mn>6</mn> </msup> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>,&#xa0;<InlineEquation ID="IEq2"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(1\times 10^7\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mn>1</mn> <mo>×</mo> <msup> <mn>10</mn> <mn>7</mn> </msup> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>,&#xa0;<InlineEquation ID="IEq3"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(1\times 10^8\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mn>1</mn> <mo>×</mo> <msup> <mn>10</mn> <mn>8</mn> </msup> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> and <InlineEquation ID="IEq4"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(1\times 10^9\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mn>1</mn> <mo>×</mo> <msup> <mn>10</mn> <mn>9</mn> </msup> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>), and the original EPID TD was denoised by the SUNet neural network. The denoised EPID TD was assessed both qualitatively and quantitatively using the structural similarity (SSIM), peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), and gamma passing rate (GPR) with respect to <InlineEquation ID="IEq5"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(1\times 10^9\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mn>1</mn> <mo>×</mo> <msup> <mn>10</mn> <mn>9</mn> </msup> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> as a reference. The computation times for both the MC simulation and DL-based denoising were recorded. As the number of particles increased, both the quality of the noisy EPID TD and computation time increased significantly (<InlineEquation ID="IEq6"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(1\times 10^6\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mn>1</mn> <mo>×</mo> <msup> <mn>10</mn> <mn>6</mn> </msup> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>: 1.12 s, <InlineEquation ID="IEq7"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(1\times 10^7\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mn>1</mn> <mo>×</mo> <msup> <mn>10</mn> <mn>7</mn> </msup> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>: 1.72 s, <InlineEquation ID="IEq8"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(1\times 10^8\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mn>1</mn> <mo>×</mo> <msup> <mn>10</mn> <mn>8</mn> </msup> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>: 8.62 s, and <InlineEquation ID="IEq9"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(1\times 10^9\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mn>1</mn> <mo>×</mo> <msup> <mn>10</mn> <mn>9</mn> </msup> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>: 73.89 s). In contrast, the DL-based denoising time remained at 0.13<InlineEquation ID="IEq10"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(-\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mo>-</mo> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>0.16 s. The denoised EPID TD shows a smoother visual appearance and profile curves, but differences between <InlineEquation ID="IEq11"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(1\times 10^6\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mn>1</mn> <mo>×</mo> <msup> <mn>10</mn> <mn>6</mn> </msup> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> and <InlineEquation ID="IEq12"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(1\times 10^9\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mn>1</mn> <mo>×</mo> <msup> <mn>10</mn> <mn>9</mn> </msup> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> still remain. SSIM improves from 0.61 to 0.95 for <InlineEquation ID="IEq13"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(1\times 10^6\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mn>1</mn> <mo>×</mo> <msup> <mn>10</mn> <mn>6</mn> </msup> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>, 0.70 to 0.96 for <InlineEquation ID="IEq14"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(1\times 10^7\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mn>1</mn> <mo>×</mo> <msup> <mn>10</mn> <mn>7</mn> </msup> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>, and 0.90 to 0.97 for <InlineEquation ID="IEq15"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(1\times 10^8\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mn>1</mn> <mo>×</mo> <msup> <mn>10</mn> <mn>8</mn> </msup> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>. PSNR increases by &gt; 20% for <InlineEquation ID="IEq16"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(1\times 10^6\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mn>1</mn> <mo>×</mo> <msup> <mn>10</mn> <mn>6</mn> </msup> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> and <InlineEquation ID="IEq17"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(1\times 10^7\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mn>1</mn> <mo>×</mo> <msup> <mn>10</mn> <mn>7</mn> </msup> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>, and &gt; 10% for <InlineEquation ID="IEq18"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(1\times 10^8\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mn>1</mn> <mo>×</mo> <msup> <mn>10</mn> <mn>8</mn> </msup> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>. GPR improves from 48.47% to 89.10% for <InlineEquation ID="IEq19"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(1\times 10^6\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mn>1</mn> <mo>×</mo> <msup> <mn>10</mn> <mn>6</mn> </msup> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>, 61.04% to 94.35% for <InlineEquation ID="IEq20"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(1\times 10^7\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mn>1</mn> <mo>×</mo> <msup> <mn>10</mn> <mn>7</mn> </msup> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>, and 91.88% to 99.55% for <InlineEquation ID="IEq21"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(1\times 10^8\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mn>1</mn> <mo>×</mo> <msup> <mn>10</mn> <mn>8</mn> </msup> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>. The method that combines MC simulation with DL-based denoising for EPID TD generation can accelerate TD prediction and maintain high accuracy, offering a promising solution for efficient PSQA.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

A novel method for EPID transmission dose generation using Monte Carlo simulation and deep learning

  • Tao Qiu,
  • Ning Gao,
  • Yan-Kui Chang,
  • Xi Pei,
  • Huan-Li Luo,
  • Fu Jin

摘要

This study aimed to integrate Monte Carlo (MC) simulation with deep learning (DL)-based denoising techniques to achieve fast and accurate prediction of high-quality electronic portal imaging device (EPID) transmission dose (TD) for patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA). A total of 100 lung cases were used to obtain the noisy EPID TD by the ARCHER MC code under four kinds of particle numbers ( \(1\times 10^6\) 1 × 10 6 \(1\times 10^7\) 1 × 10 7 \(1\times 10^8\) 1 × 10 8 and \(1\times 10^9\) 1 × 10 9 ), and the original EPID TD was denoised by the SUNet neural network. The denoised EPID TD was assessed both qualitatively and quantitatively using the structural similarity (SSIM), peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), and gamma passing rate (GPR) with respect to \(1\times 10^9\) 1 × 10 9 as a reference. The computation times for both the MC simulation and DL-based denoising were recorded. As the number of particles increased, both the quality of the noisy EPID TD and computation time increased significantly ( \(1\times 10^6\) 1 × 10 6 : 1.12 s, \(1\times 10^7\) 1 × 10 7 : 1.72 s, \(1\times 10^8\) 1 × 10 8 : 8.62 s, and \(1\times 10^9\) 1 × 10 9 : 73.89 s). In contrast, the DL-based denoising time remained at 0.13 \(-\) - 0.16 s. The denoised EPID TD shows a smoother visual appearance and profile curves, but differences between \(1\times 10^6\) 1 × 10 6 and \(1\times 10^9\) 1 × 10 9 still remain. SSIM improves from 0.61 to 0.95 for \(1\times 10^6\) 1 × 10 6 , 0.70 to 0.96 for \(1\times 10^7\) 1 × 10 7 , and 0.90 to 0.97 for \(1\times 10^8\) 1 × 10 8 . PSNR increases by > 20% for \(1\times 10^6\) 1 × 10 6 and \(1\times 10^7\) 1 × 10 7 , and > 10% for \(1\times 10^8\) 1 × 10 8 . GPR improves from 48.47% to 89.10% for \(1\times 10^6\) 1 × 10 6 , 61.04% to 94.35% for \(1\times 10^7\) 1 × 10 7 , and 91.88% to 99.55% for \(1\times 10^8\) 1 × 10 8 . The method that combines MC simulation with DL-based denoising for EPID TD generation can accelerate TD prediction and maintain high accuracy, offering a promising solution for efficient PSQA.