Method, device and equipment for verifying precise dose for tumor patients

Abstract

The invention provides a method, device and equipment for verifying precise dose for tumor patients. The method includes: building a tumor patient information database; classifying patient sample datain the tumor patient information database, and building a precise radiotherapy dose verification and evaluation model to obtain a normalization QA index based on patient DVH dose verification; usinga parameter analysis algorithm to analyze the data of the tumor patient information database to obtain the key plan parameters of the tumor patients; inputting the key plan parameters, serving as theinput parameters, of the samples of the tumor patient information database into the patient precise radiotherapy dose verification and evaluation model, and using a recursive algorithm to correct thepatient precise radiotherapy dose verification and evaluation model to build a precise radiotherapy plan individual QA automatic predicting model. The method has the advantages that the precise radiotherapy dose verification and evaluation model is optimized by associated plan parameter extraction and the algorithm, the precise radiotherapy plan predicting QA index is obtained through the recursive algorithm, and precise QA predicting and high evaluation efficiency are achieved.

Description

technical field [0001] The invention relates to the field of intelligent control algorithms, in particular to a method, system and equipment for accurate dose verification of tumor patients. Background technique [0002] Precise radiation therapy is a goal that is constantly pursued in the field of radiotherapy, that is, to ensure that the tumor area receives accurate and sufficient radiation doses during radiotherapy, while avoiding excessive irradiation of surrounding organs at risk. The dose distribution of the emerging precision radiotherapy techniques such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has already met this point well. However, due to the highly conformal nature of IMRT and the complexity of the plan design process, especially with the emergence of the emerging IMRT technology - volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), planning has its own limitations in the design and execution process. More dynamically changing parameters, increasing the uncertainty ...

AI Technical Summary

Problems solved by technology

[0006] However, two important evaluation indicators for dose verification: γ index and dose-volume histogram DVH, both have obvious deficiencies

The calculation of the γ index is based on pixel points, and does not consider the regional image segmentation of the tumor target area and surrounding organs at risk. Therefore, it cannot be correlated with the tumor control rate and the probability of normal tissue complications after radiotherapy in tumor patients to guide clinical practice. Work

The three-dimensional dose verification based on the patient's anatomical structure has become an important development trend in the quality assurance of radiotherapy plans. It uses the independent three-dimensional dose algorithm that comes with each quality control software or adds disturbance to the original dose distribution to reconstruct the three-dimensional dose distribution. Providing dose-volume information corresponding to each anatomical structure through DVH can help physicists more clearly discover and understand possible error-prone problems in the course of radiotherapy. Evaluate the DVH matrix error of the actual dose and the actual dose, the amount of data involved is large and cumbersome, and the evaluation efficiency is low

[0007] At present, the high pass rate of the gamma index commonly used in the dose verification of precision radiotherapy plans cannot guarantee the accurate execution of the patient's calculated dose, and the gamma index cannot reflect the dose-volume relationship between the clinical target area and surrounding organs at risk and the possible clinical effects

Dose verification based on patient DVH can improve the correlation between verification results and clinical practice accuracy, but currently lacks a unified standard and mainly relies on the subjective judgment of doctors

However, doctors' clinical knowledge, experience, energy, status and many other factors determine that there are large differences in the quality assessment between different doctors and different patients.

Images