Verification method, radiotherapy device, electronic device, and storage medium

Abstract

The present disclosure describes a method for verifying whether a radiotherapy device faithfully executes a treatment plan, a radiotherapy device, an electronic device, and a computer-readable storage medium. The method comprises: adopting a treatment plan, the treatment plan comprising a plurality of control points; setting a time period between two adjacent control points as a verification time period; pre-calculating a planned dose distribution that should be delivered by the radiotherapy device corresponding to each control point; calculating, according to an operating parameter of the radiotherapy device, an implemented dose distribution during a verification time period formed by a current control point and a previous control point adjacent to the current control point; comparing a difference between the planned dose distribution and the implemented dose distribution during the verification time period; and determining, on the basis of the difference, whether the treatment plan has been faithfully executed. According to the present disclosure, the execution condition of the radiotherapy device can be continuously verified in each verification time period, enabling real-time determination of whether the radiotherapy device has faithfully executed the treatment plan.

Description

Verification method, radiotherapy device, electronic device, and storage medium TECHNICAL FIELD

[0001] The present disclosure relates generally to the biomedical engineering industry, and more particularly to a method for verifying whether a radiotherapy device faithfully executes a treatment plan, a radiotherapy device, an electronic device, and a computer-readable storage medium. BACKGROUND

[0002] In a typical modern radiotherapy process, a subject first undergoes three-dimensional imaging of the treatment site using an imaging device (e.g., CT, MRI, etc.). Using these images, a treatment plan is formulated using a computer system known as a treatment planning system (TPS). The treatment plan can then be transmitted over a computer network to another subject data repository. At each treatment, the control system of the radiotherapy device extracts the treatment plan from the subject data repository and converts the treatment plan into a radiotherapy device control language for execution.

[0003] In modern radiotherapy processes, the treatment plan requires not only the accurate coordination of various mechanical components of the radiotherapy device with the radiation dose and different dose rates, but also involves multiple data transmissions and decoding between different computer networks. Due to the large amount of data and the complexity of the treatment plan in the radiotherapy process, it is often difficult for an operator to check every piece of data on a modern radiotherapy plan. In addition, since it is often difficult for an operator to simply check the data integrity and correctness of the transmitted treatment plan, and whether the plan can be faithfully executed, the current conventional practice is to perform quality assurance (QA) on the subject's treatment plan. The QA on the subject is usually performed by transmitting the treatment plan to the radiotherapy device and having it execute the treatment plan to irradiate a phantom, and then detecting the output dose on the phantom to verify the output dose. Specifically, a radio detector array is placed in the phantom, and the radio detector array verifies whether the implemented "treatment" is the correct dose or dose distribution.

[0004] But such QA usually has the following disadvantages: (1) time and money consuming. For many years, performing such QA has been one of the main tasks of medical physicists in the field of radiotherapy. Since performing QA involves professional and complicated operations such as using professional radiotherapy equipment, configuring professional physicians and medical physicists, simulating manufacturing body film, designing field and calculating dose, arranging output verification report, etc., medical physicists have spent a lot of time in the research and improvement of QA equipment, and billions of dollars have been spent on it. (2) Such QA is a one-time event before daily treatment for several weeks. It is obvious that QA only confirms that the radiotherapy equipment can perform as planned when irradiating the body phantom before multiple formal treatments, but it is still unclear whether the radiotherapy equipment can perform the treatment plan as it is when the patient is treated subsequently. If the radiotherapy equipment cannot perform the treatment plan as it is, it is very likely that the patient will output the wrong dose, resulting in the patient's personal safety being unprotected. Furthermore, if such an unprotected QA is performed every time for several weeks of treatment, the patient's life safety will undoubtedly be seriously damaged.

[0005] For example, for the prior art QA, it does not verify the problem of treatment plan data damage during treatment. In the prior art, it is generally believed that if the data of the TPS is verified to be correct during QA, it will not be a problem in subsequent actual treatment. However, the actual situation is that the data of the TPS may be damaged in the process of transmission or use. For another example, even after QA, there may be a problem of human error in selecting and setting or loading the wrong treatment plan during actual execution of the treatment plan. For another example, for the prior art QA, it does not verify the problem of operation failure of the radiotherapy equipment during treatment. That is, the prior art generally believes that the operation of the radiotherapy equipment is not a problem during QA, and it will not be a problem in subsequent repeated treatment, but the actual situation is that the radiotherapy equipment may also fail during treatment. For example, the position of the multi-leaf collimator cannot accurately achieve the required field shape as planned due to the wear of the screw. In other words, even after QA, there is a problem that a certain component fails to accurately execute the treatment plan due to electrical failure during actual execution of the treatment plan.

[0006] In the prior art, the following methods are usually used to verify the output dose of the patient during actual treatment:

[0007] For example, WO2017054316A1 discloses a method for online dose monitoring and verification in radiotherapy, which specifically measures the transmission dose distribution of the human body being treated by a two-dimensional planar measurement device (such as an electronic portal imaging system (EPID), film or ionization chamber, etc.) fixed on an accelerator, and according to the transmission dose distribution, phantom geometry parameters and accelerator data, the accelerator exit flux distribution is reversely calculated by using an iterative method, and then the three-dimensional dose distribution is calculated by using a dose algorithm, and finally the three-dimensional dose distribution is compared with the known dose distribution to verify the known dose in radiotherapy. However, in this verification method, the two-dimensional planar measurement device needs to be placed behind the patient, and the verification is a single verification after the treatment is completed (i.e. after the treatment plan is implemented).

[0008] For another example, CN108404302A discloses a dose verification system, which can also calculate and verify the dose during the treatment of the patient, specifically, in the implementation of the fractionated treatment of the radiotherapy plan, the CBCT image used for dose reconstruction is obtained before the irradiation starts, the gray data of the EPIC is recorded during the irradiation, the transmission dose of the rays penetrating the human body is obtained according to the calibration relationship, and the three-dimensional dose reconstruction is completed by using the scatter kernel deconvolution method based on the transmission dose information and the influence of the CBCT, the dose obtained by the three-dimensional reconstruction is compared with the dose of the radiotherapy plan for evaluation, and if the evaluation is passed, the subsequent fractionated plan is continued to be implemented, and if the evaluation is not passed, the plan is re-optimized to provide decision-making data for the subsequent fractionated treatment and plan correction of the radiotherapy physicist. The verification method disclosed in this patent is similar to that disclosed in WO2017054316A1, and there is no detailed description of how to make dose reconstruction. Unlike the method disclosed in WO2017054316A1, this patent compares the dose calculated on the CBCT of the patient before the treatment with the dose calculated on the CT used for planning. Since the CBCT does not have a one-to-one relationship with the electron density in the patient's body, the CBCT cannot be used for dose calculation. In other words, the method disclosed in CN108404302A is not feasible in practice.

[0009] In addition, whether the two-dimensional planar measurement device (such as an electronic portal imaging system (EPID), film or ionization chamber, etc.) is used to collect and measure the transmission dose distribution in WO2017054316A1 or the scatter kernel deconvolution method is used to complete the three-dimensional dose reconstruction in CN108404302A, it takes a long time and is not conducive to continuously or real-time verify the execution of the radiotherapy device itself during the implementation of the treatment plan.

[0010] Therefore, the above verification methods cannot continuously verify the execution of the radiotherapy device in the process of implementing the treatment plan, and thus it is difficult to ensure whether the radiotherapy device faithfully executes the treatment plan in the execution process.

[0011] SUMMARY

[0012] The present disclosure is proposed in view of the above situation, and aims to provide a method, a radiotherapy device, an electronic device, and a computer readable storage medium, which can continuously verify the execution of the radiotherapy device at each verification period, and can judge whether the radiotherapy device faithfully executes the treatment plan in real time.

[0013] To this end, the first aspect of the present disclosure provides a method for verifying whether a radiotherapy device faithfully executes a treatment plan, the method comprising: using the treatment plan, the treatment plan comprising a plurality of control points, setting a period between two adjacent control points as a verification period, and pre-calculating a planned dose distribution that should be delivered by the radiotherapy device corresponding to each control point; calculating an implemented dose distribution in the verification period formed by the current control point and the last control point adjacent to the current control point according to the operating parameters of the radiotherapy device; comparing the difference between the planned dose distribution and the implemented dose distribution in the verification period; and judging whether the treatment plan is faithfully executed based on the difference.

[0014] In the first aspect of the present disclosure, the method of the present disclosure verifies whether the radiotherapy device faithfully executes the treatment plan in the verification period formed by two adjacent control points, for example, after the radiotherapy device implements the last control point adjacent to the current control point, causing the operating parameters of the radiotherapy device to change, the implemented dose distribution delivered by the radiotherapy device can be obtained based on the changed operating parameters of the radiotherapy device, and by comparing the difference between the implemented dose distribution and the planned dose distribution, whether the treatment plan is faithfully executed can be judged based on the difference. Thus, in the process of implementing the treatment plan by the radiotherapy device, the above method can continuously verify the execution of the radiotherapy device at each verification period, and can judge whether the radiotherapy device faithfully executes the treatment plan in real time.

[0015] Additionally, in the method for verifying whether the radiotherapy device has faithfully executed the treatment plan according to the first aspect of the present disclosure, optionally, if the difference is less than the preset value, it indicates that the planned dose distribution has been faithfully executed; if the difference is not less than the preset value, it indicates that the planned dose distribution has not been faithfully executed. In this case, based on the setting of the preset value, it can be judged whether the difference can be accepted. If the difference is small (i.e., the difference is less than the preset value), it can be judged that the implemented dose distribution can be accepted (i.e., the planned dose distribution has been faithfully executed); if the difference is large (i.e., the difference is not less than the preset value), it can be judged that the implemented dose distribution cannot be accepted (i.e., the planned dose distribution has not been faithfully executed).

[0016] Additionally, in the method for verifying whether the radiotherapy device has faithfully executed the treatment plan according to the first aspect of the present disclosure, optionally, if the difference is less than the preset value, the subsequent control point is continued to be implemented; if the difference is not less than the preset value, the subsequent control point is stopped from being implemented. In this case, the difference not being less than the preset value means that the planned dose distribution of the last control point adjacent to the current control point has not been faithfully executed. By stopping the implementation of the subsequent control point, the irreversible treatment consequences caused to the target object can be reduced.

[0017] Additionally, in the method for verifying whether the radiotherapy device has faithfully executed the treatment plan according to the first aspect of the present disclosure, optionally, when the comparison is performed, the subsequent control point is continued to be implemented. In this case, the verification process during the verification period and the implementation process of the subsequent control point can be performed uninterruptedly, and the operation efficiency of the radiotherapy device can be improved.

[0018] Additionally, in the method for verifying whether the radiotherapy device has faithfully executed the treatment plan according to the first aspect of the present disclosure, optionally, the operation parameters include first parameters or second parameters, the first parameters include output number of jumps, irradiation field shape, position coordinates of a target region, and rotation angle of a rotating gantry in the radiotherapy device, and the second parameters include beam shape and beam angle. In this case, the verification can be performed through the first parameters or the second parameters, and the source of the parameters can be expanded.

[0019] Additionally, in the method for verifying whether the radiotherapy device has faithfully executed the treatment plan according to the first aspect of the present disclosure, optionally, the first parameters are collected by a built-in sensor, and the second parameters are collected by an external monitoring device. In this way, the collection of the operation parameters can be performed through the built-in sensor of the radiotherapy device or the external monitoring device arranged outside the radiotherapy device.

[0020] In addition, in the method for verifying whether a radiotherapy device faithfully implements a treatment plan according to the first aspect of the present disclosure, optionally, the difference includes at least one of a difference percentage and an equivalent distance. In this case, if the planned dose distribution and the actual dose distribution at a point (x, y, z) in the patient at a certain time point are D1(x, y, z) and D2(x, y, z) respectively, the difference percentage is calculated as: Δ% = (|(D1(x, y, z)-D2(x, y, z))| / max(D1, D2))×100%, || is an absolute value symbol, and the equivalent distance is the distance between a point having the same dose as the point in the planned dose distribution graph and the periphery of the point in the implemented dose distribution graph. In a region with a large dose gradient, a small geometric error can cause a large percentage difference. Thus, the size of the difference can be represented by the combination of the difference percentage and the equivalent distance, and a more accurate difference value can be obtained by representing the difference in a comprehensive manner of the difference percentage and the equivalent distance.

[0021] In addition, in the method for verifying whether a radiotherapy device faithfully implements a treatment plan according to the first aspect of the present disclosure, optionally, only the primary dose delivered by the first collision of the beam in the target object is considered without considering the scatter dose when calculating the planned dose distribution based on the treatment plan and when calculating the implemented dose distribution according to the operating parameters obtained at the time of treatment. Thus, the increase in the amount of calculation caused by additional calculation of the scatter dose can be reduced.

[0022] In addition, in the method for verifying whether a radiotherapy device faithfully implements a treatment plan according to the first aspect of the present disclosure, optionally, both the primary dose delivered by the first collision of the beam in the target object and the scatter dose are considered when calculating the planned dose distribution based on the treatment plan and when calculating the implemented dose distribution according to the operating parameters obtained at the time of treatment. Thus, by calculating the implemented dose distribution in a manner of considering both the primary dose and the scatter dose, a more accurate implemented dose distribution can be obtained, and the accuracy of the judgment can be improved.

[0023] In addition, in the method for verifying whether a radiotherapy device faithfully implements a treatment plan according to the first aspect of the present disclosure, optionally, the planned dose distribution to be delivered by the radiotherapy device is calculated in advance according to the treatment plan, and the planned dose distribution is stored in a memory. In this case, the planned dose distribution corresponding to each control point can be calculated in advance according to the treatment plan, and the planned dose distribution can be conveniently retrieved when subsequent comparison and judgment are performed by storing the calculated planned dose distribution in the memory.

[0024] Additionally, in the method for verifying whether a radiotherapy device has faithfully executed a treatment plan according to the first aspect of the present disclosure, optionally, the verification period formed by the current control point and the last control point adjacent to the current control point is a current verification period, and the dose distribution calculated by the radiotherapy device in the current verification period is the implementation dose distribution. In this case, by taking the dose distribution calculated in the current verification period as the implementation dose distribution, the calculation process can be accelerated compared to the cumulative dose distribution obtained by calculating all the verification periods before.

[0025] Additionally, in the method for verifying whether a radiotherapy device has faithfully executed a treatment plan according to the first aspect of the present disclosure, optionally, the verification period formed by the current control point and the last control point adjacent to the current control point is a current verification period, and the dose distribution calculated by the radiotherapy device in the current verification period is the implementation dose distribution. In this case, by taking the dose distribution calculated in the current verification period as the implementation dose distribution, the calculation process can be accelerated compared to the cumulative dose distribution obtained by calculating all the verification periods before.

[0026] Additionally, in the method for verifying whether a radiotherapy device has faithfully executed a treatment plan according to the first aspect of the present disclosure, optionally, at least one irradiation point in the irradiation field is randomly selected to calculate the implementation dose distribution and compare it with the corresponding planned dose distribution. In this case, if the implementation dose distribution calculated by the randomly selected irradiation point is within the allowed difference, it can be determined that the implementation dose distribution calculated by the irradiation points in the region adjacent to the irradiation point is also within the allowed difference. By using random sampling to calculate the implementation dose distribution, the computational load can be reduced and the calculation speed can be improved.

[0027] Additionally, in the method for verifying whether a radiotherapy device has faithfully executed a treatment plan according to the first aspect of the present disclosure, optionally, the number of verification periods verified near the end of the treatment is less than the number of verification periods verified near the beginning of the treatment. In this case, if no errors are found in the verification performed by the multiple verification periods near the beginning of the treatment, the number of verifications performed on the verification periods near the end of the treatment can be reduced, thereby ensuring the verification effect while reducing the number of calculations and improving the operation efficiency of the radiotherapy device.

[0028] Additionally, in the method for verifying whether the radiotherapy device has faithfully executed the treatment plan according to the first aspect of the present disclosure, optionally, the time interval of the verification period matches the running state of the device that causes the change of the running parameter. In this case, it can be ensured that the change of the running parameter of the device is calculated after the running state of the device in the radiotherapy process has completed the change of the next stage, so that a more accurate delivered dose distribution can be calculated.

[0029] The second aspect of the present disclosure provides a radiotherapy device, which comprises a preprocessing unit, a calculation unit, a comparison unit and a judgment unit. The preprocessing unit is configured to use the treatment plan, the treatment plan comprising a plurality of control points, the time period between two adjacent control points being a verification period, and the planned dose distribution to be delivered by the radiotherapy device corresponding to each control point is calculated in advance; the calculation unit is configured to calculate the delivered dose distribution in the verification period formed by the current control point and the last control point adjacent to the current control point according to the running parameter of the radiotherapy device; the comparison unit is configured to compare the difference between the planned dose distribution and the delivered dose distribution in the verification period; and the judgment unit is configured to judge whether the treatment plan has been faithfully executed based on the difference.

[0030] In the second aspect of the present disclosure, the radiotherapy device verifies whether the treatment plan has been faithfully executed in the verification period formed by two adjacent control points, for example, after the radiotherapy device implements the last control point adjacent to the current control point and causes the change of the running parameter of the radiotherapy device, the calculation unit can obtain the delivered dose distribution of the radiotherapy device based on the changed running parameter of the radiotherapy device, the comparison unit compares the difference between the delivered dose distribution and the planned dose distribution, and the judgment unit judges whether the treatment plan has been faithfully executed based on the difference. Thus, in the process of implementing the treatment plan by the radiotherapy device, the execution of the radiotherapy device can be continuously verified in each verification period by the above method, and whether the treatment plan has been faithfully executed by the radiotherapy device can be judged in real time.

[0031] The third aspect of the present disclosure provides an electronic device, which comprises a processor and a memory, and the processor executes the program stored in the memory to realize the method of any one of the first aspect. Thus, the method of the first aspect can be facilitated by the electronic device.

[0032] The fourth aspect of the present disclosure provides a computer readable storage medium, characterized in that the computer readable storage medium stores at least one instruction, and the at least one instruction is executed by a processor to implement the method of any one of the first aspect. Thus, the computer readable storage medium can be used to store and execute the computer instructions related to the method of the first aspect.

[0033] According to the present disclosure, a method, a radiotherapy device, an electronic device and a computer readable storage medium are provided, which can continuously verify the execution of the radiotherapy device at each verification period during the implementation of the treatment plan by the radiotherapy device, and can determine whether the radiotherapy device has faithfully executed the treatment plan in real time. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

[0034] The present disclosure will now be explained in further detail by way of example only with reference to the accompanying drawings.

[0035] Fig. 1 is a functional block diagram illustrating one embodiment of a radiotherapy device according to an example of the present disclosure.

[0036] Fig. 2 is a functional block diagram illustrating another embodiment of a radiotherapy device according to an example of the present disclosure.

[0037] Fig. 3 is a schematic diagram illustrating an application scenario of a radiotherapy device according to an example of the present disclosure.

[0038] Fig. 4 is a schematic diagram illustrating the acquisition of operating parameters by a peripheral monitoring device according to an example of the present disclosure.

[0039] Fig. 5 is a flowchart illustrating one embodiment of a verification method according to an example of the present disclosure.

[0040] Fig. 6 is a flowchart illustrating another embodiment of a verification method according to an example of the present disclosure.

[0041] Fig. 7 is a flowchart illustrating the implementation of a control point according to an example of the present disclosure.

[0042] Fig. 8 is a flowchart illustrating yet another embodiment of a verification method according to an example of the present disclosure. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0043] Hereinafter, preferred embodiments of the present disclosure will be described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings. In the following description, the same parts are given the same reference numerals, and repetitive description is omitted. In addition, the drawings are merely schematic diagrams, and the proportions of the sizes of the components with respect to each other or the shapes of the components, etc. can be different from the actual ones.

[0044] It should be noted that the terms "comprising" and "having" and any variations thereof, such as a process, method, system, product or device including or having a series of steps or units, in the present disclosure do not necessarily limit those steps or units to the clearly listed ones, but can include or have other steps or units not clearly listed or inherent to such processes, methods, products or devices.

[0045] A treatment plan can be understood as a programmatic file for a radiotherapy device to perform beam irradiation as specified. After a treatment plan is made by a physician or a physicist according to a treatment planning system, a quality assurance (QA) is performed for the treatment plan, and the object of the quality assurance is a phantom film simulating a target region of a target object. If the dose delivered to the phantom film in the QA is accurate, it is assumed that the actual dose delivered to the target object in the actual treatment of the target object is also accurate. However, the inventors have found that even after the QA, it does not mean that the radiotherapy device will faithfully execute the treatment plan in the actual treatment of the target object. In fact, the QA takes a lot of time (a few hours at the shortest, and several days at the longest), and after such a long time, there can be problems such as damage to the treatment plan data, human errors in selecting and setting or loading the wrong treatment plan, wear of the lead screw in the multi-leaf collimator, etc., which can cause the treatment plan not to be faithfully executed in the actual treatment of the target object.

[0046] The present disclosure provides a verification method of a treatment plan (hereinafter referred to as a verification method) to solve at least the above problems. The verification method provided by the present disclosure can sequentially verify whether a radiotherapy device faithfully executes a treatment plan in a plurality of verification periods, and can stop the execution or operation of the radiotherapy device if it is determined that the radiotherapy device does not faithfully execute the treatment plan in a certain verification period, and can continue the execution of the treatment plan after the cause of the stop is found and solved.

[0047] The present disclosure also provides a radiotherapy device that can continuously verify whether it faithfully executes a treatment plan during its operation and treatment of a target object, and can stop the execution, e.g., shut down, if it is determined that it does not faithfully execute the treatment plan in a certain verification period, and can continue the execution of the treatment plan after the cause of the stop is found and solved.

[0048] The method for verifying whether a radiotherapy device faithfully executes a treatment plan according to the present disclosure can also be referred to as a method for verifying whether a treatment plan is faithfully executed in a body treatment, a method for verifying whether a treatment plan is faithfully executed in each verification period, a method for verifying whether a treatment plan is faithfully executed in real time, etc.

[0049] The radiation therapy device involved in the present disclosure can also be referred to as a device for verifying whether a treatment plan is faithfully executed, a real-time verification device, etc.

[0050] FIG. 1 is a functional block diagram illustrating one embodiment of a radiation therapy device involved in an example of the present disclosure.

[0051] Referring to FIG. 1, in some examples, the radiation therapy device can be a three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy device (3D-CRT), an intensity modulated radiation therapy device (IMRT), a volumetric modulated arc therapy device (VMAT), or a stereotactic ablative radiotherapy device (SABR), etc.

[0052] In some examples, the radiation therapy device can sequentially implement a plurality of control points to output a beam to a target region of the target object 6 in the process of treating the target object 6. The target region of the target object is then treated by the beam. The control points are part of a treatment plan, and the control points can be used to at least characterize a planned dose distribution output by the radiation therapy device and a time point at which the dose distribution is implemented.

[0053] In some examples, the target object 6 can be a human body (sometimes also referred to as a patient) or an animal body. The target region can be a certain tissue in the human body or animal body, such as a body surface tumor, a brain and spinal cord tumor, a chest region (such as lung cancer), a gastrointestinal system, a urogenital system, a bone, etc.

[0054] In some examples, the beam can be an X-ray, a gamma ray, an electron beam, a proton beam, a neutron beam, a heavy ion beam, etc. In this case, since different kinds of beams have different energies, beams with different energies can be selected according to the target region or human tissue to be treated.

[0055] It can be understood that the energy of the beam can affect its penetration depth and dose distribution in the target region tissue. For example, high-energy X-rays and gamma rays can penetrate deeper into the body tissue, while low-energy X-rays have weaker penetration ability. In a treatment plan, doctors and physicists can select appropriate radiation energies according to the location, size, and shape of the tumor, as well as the sensitivity of the surrounding normal tissue, to achieve the best treatment effect and the smallest side effects. In addition, the energy of the radiation is also related to the percentage depth dose (PDD), which is an indicator describing the energy deposited by the beam in the tissue at different depths. Factors that can affect PDD can include radiation energy, field size, source skin distance (SSD), and source axis distance (SAD), etc. By optimizing these parameters, the dose distribution of the beam can be adjusted to better conform to the shape of the target region, improving the accuracy of treatment.

[0056] In some examples, the treatment plan can be adapted according to the verification method of the present disclosure. For example, the time interval of the verification period formed by adjacent control points can be adjusted, so that the calculation and determination can be timely performed within the verification period. In other examples, the treatment plan of the present disclosure can also be made using the techniques commonly used in the art.

[0057] The following gives the general steps of treatment plan making:

[0058] In some examples, the target object 6 can be evaluated first. For example, the medical history, physical examination results and relevant examination materials of the target object, such as blood tests, biochemical tests, etc., can be collected.

[0059] In some examples, the target object 6 can be subjected to imaging examination. For example, the target region of the target object 6 can be three-dimensionally imaged by using imaging techniques such as CT (Computed Tomography), MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), etc., so as to determine the position, size and surrounding normal tissue of the tumor.

[0060] In some examples, the image data obtained in the previous step can be further transmitted. For example, the obtained image data can be transmitted to a treatment planning system (TPS).

[0061] In some examples, the target region (target volume) and normal tissue can be outlined. For example, the tumor target volume (including GTV (Gross Tumor Volume), CTV (Clinical Target Volume), PTV (Planning Target Volume)) and normal tissue (OAR, Organs At Risk) to be protected can be accurately outlined on the image by a physician and a physicist, or a computer artificial intelligence, etc.

[0062] In some examples, a treatment plan can be made according to the treatment planning system (TPS). For example, the TPS software can be used to make a preliminary treatment plan according to the outlined target volume and normal tissue, including designing the dose distribution, the irradiation field, the dose rate, etc.

[0063] In some examples, dose calculation and optimization can be performed. For example, dose calculation can be performed in the TPS to simulate the dose distribution of the beam in the target object 6 in vivo; according to the calculation results, the irradiation parameters can be adjusted to optimize the dose distribution, so as to ensure that the target volume receives sufficient dose while protecting the normal tissue.

[0064] In some examples, when designing the irradiation field of each treatment stage, the time required for the irradiation field to complete the change at each control point (i.e. the irradiation field completes the shape change to enable the irradiation of the next control point) can be made less than the time interval of the verification period.

[0065] Referring back to FIG. 1, in some examples, the radiotherapy device can comprise a pre-processing unit 8. The pre-processing unit 8 can be configured to generate a treatment plan. The treatment plan can comprise a plurality of control points.

[0066] In the present disclosure, the time period between two adjacent control points can be referred to as a verification period.

[0067] In some examples, the planned dose distribution to be delivered by the radiotherapy device corresponding to each control point can be pre-calculated.

[0068] In some examples, the radiotherapy device can comprise a calculation unit 9. The calculation unit 9 can be configured to calculate an implemented dose distribution within a verification period formed by a current control point and a previous control point adjacent to the current control point based on the operating parameters of the radiotherapy device. The current control point can be the control point being implemented at the current time.

[0069] In some examples, the radiotherapy device can comprise a comparison unit 10. The comparison unit 10 can be configured to compare the difference between the planned dose distribution and the implemented dose distribution within the verification period.

[0070] In some examples, the radiotherapy device can comprise a judgment unit 11. The judgment unit 11 can be configured to judge whether the treatment plan is faithfully executed based on the difference.

[0071] In the present disclosure, the radiotherapy device will implement a plurality of control points in sequence to output a beam to a target region, thereby treating the target region. The radiotherapy device of the present disclosure will verify whether the radiotherapy device faithfully executes the treatment plan within a verification period formed by two adjacent control points. For example, after the radiotherapy device implements a previous control point adjacent to a current control point, causing the operating parameters of the radiotherapy device to change, the calculation unit 9 can obtain an implemented dose distribution corresponding to the beam (i.e. the dose distribution corresponding to the beam currently implemented by the radiotherapy device) based on the changed operating parameters of the radiotherapy device. The comparison unit 10 can compare the difference between the implemented dose distribution and the planned dose distribution, thereby enabling the judgment unit 11 to judge whether the treatment plan is faithfully executed based on the difference. Thus, during the implementation of the treatment plan by the radiotherapy device, by continuously verifying the execution of the radiotherapy device at each verification period, it can be judged in real time whether the radiotherapy device faithfully executes the treatment plan.

[0072] In some examples, the planned dose distribution can be pre-computed before the operation of the radiation therapy device (before the treatment is implemented on the target object). In some examples, the implemented dose distribution can be computed in real time during the operation of the radiation therapy device (during the treatment is implemented on the target object).

[0073] In some examples, the data amount of the planned dose distribution and the implemented dose distribution can be tens, hundreds or thousands. The planned dose distribution and the implemented dose distribution can correspond to each control point.

[0074] In some examples, if the difference is less than the preset value, it is determined that the planned dose distribution is faithfully implemented; if the difference is not less than the preset value, it is determined that the planned dose distribution is not faithfully implemented. In this case, based on the setting of the preset value, it can be determined whether the difference can be accepted, if the difference is small (i.e. the difference is less than the preset value), it can be determined that the implemented dose distribution can be accepted (i.e. the planned dose distribution is faithfully implemented), if the difference is large (i.e. the difference is not less than the preset value), it can be determined that the implemented dose distribution cannot be accepted (i.e. the planned dose distribution is not faithfully implemented).

[0075] FIG. 2 is a functional module diagram illustrating another embodiment of the radiation therapy device related to the examples of the present disclosure.

[0076] In some examples, referring to FIG. 2, the radiation therapy device can further include an execution unit 12. The execution unit 12 can be configured to continue to implement the subsequent control point if the difference is less than the preset value. The execution unit 12 can be configured to stop implementing the subsequent control point if the difference is not less than the preset value. In this case, the difference not less than the preset value means that the planned dose distribution of the last control point adjacent to the current control point is not faithfully implemented, and by stopping the implementation of the subsequent control point, the irreversible treatment consequences caused to the target object can be reduced.

[0077] In some examples, the execution unit 12 can be operable to stop the radiation process, or send an alarm signal to the physician or the physicist. The alarm signal can be used to indicate that the radiation therapy device does not faithfully implement the treatment plan.

[0078] In some examples, when the comparison unit 10 performs the comparison, the radiation therapy device can continue to implement the subsequent control point. In this case, the verification process in the verification period and the implementation process of the subsequent control point can be uninterrupted, and the operation efficiency of the radiation therapy device can be improved.

[0079] In some examples, when the comparison unit 10 performs the comparison, the radiotherapy device can continue to implement the current control point. In this case, the verification process during the verification period and the implementation process of the current control point can be performed successively, and the operation efficiency of the radiotherapy device can be accelerated, even if the treatment plan of the previous control point adjacent to the current control point is not faithfully executed, the treatment deviation caused by the execution of the current control point is within the acceptable deviation range. In other words, if it is judged according to the comparison result that the execution should be interrupted, the treatment deviation caused by the execution of the current control point is negligible with respect to the entire treatment process.

[0080] FIG. 3 is a schematic diagram illustrating an application scenario of a radiotherapy device related to an example of the present disclosure.

[0081] In some examples, referring to FIG. 3, the radiotherapy device can further include a rotating gantry 4, a radiation unit 2, an imaging unit 3, a treatment bed 5, and a control unit 1. The radiation unit 2 can be configured to implement irradiation of a beam. The imaging unit 3 can be configured to image a target object 6 before treatment. The treatment bed 5 can be configured to carry the target object 6. The treatment bed 5 can be controlled to move in three dimensions under the control of the control unit 1, and the control unit 1 can position a target region at an isocenter. The radiation unit 2 and the imaging unit 3 can be both fixedly installed on the rotating gantry 4. The rotating gantry 4 can rotate around the isocenter. The target region is also commonly referred to as a target volume, i.e., a portion of the target object 6 that is expected to be irradiated.

[0082] In some examples, referring to FIG. 3, the rotating gantry 4 can be located in a zy plane defined by the z axis and the y axis, and the treatment bed 5 can be arranged along the x axis.

[0083] In some examples, the rotating gantry 4 can rotate in the zy plane. In some examples, the rotating gantry 4 can be deflected towards the x axis direction. In this way, the rotating gantry 4 can move the radiation unit 2 to achieve more sufficient irradiation of the target object 6.

[0084] In some examples, the radiation unit 2 can generate a beam for radiotherapy at kV (kilovoltage) or MV (megavoltage) energy.

[0085] In some examples, the rotating gantry 4 can be a ring-shaped gantry (as shown in FIG. 1). Of course, the rotating gantry 4 can also be other types or shapes of gantries, for example, can be a C-shaped gantry or a mechanical arm, etc.

[0086] In some examples, the radiation unit 2 can have a radiation field limiting device thereon. The radiation field limiting device can be used to control the shape of the irradiation field. The radiation field limiting device can be, for example, jaws, an MLC (Multi Leaf Collimator), a circular collimator, or an electron beam applicator, etc. The radiation unit 2 can be rotatable about a central axis of the irradiation field.

[0087] In some examples, the MLC can include components such as metal fingers or lead screws. The MLC can be composed of, for example, a plurality of movable lead screws with a length of 0.5 cm to 1.0 cm. The number of lead screws can be 60 to 120. The shape of the irradiation field can be controlled by controlling the movement of the individual lead screws.

[0088] In some examples, the imaging unit 3 can include an EPID (Electronic Portal Imaging Device). The EPID can acquire digital images for field dose verification.

[0089] In some examples, the control unit 1 can be used to control the movement of the rotating gantry 4, and to control the operation of the radiation unit 2 and the imaging unit 3. The control unit 1 can include, but is not limited to, power supply control components, drive motors, etc.

[0090] In use, the radiation therapy device of the present disclosure can coordinate the rotation of the rotating gantry 4 with the control of the radiation field limiting device on the irradiation field, so that the radiation unit 2 delivers the beam to the target region in the most optimal direction and position.

[0091] In some examples, referring to FIG. 3, the radiation therapy device can include a computer 7. The computer 7 can access the operating parameters of the various components of the radiation therapy device (such as the rotating gantry 4 and the radiation unit 2, etc.) to perform calculations, comparisons, and output control instructions (such as a shutdown instruction) to the control unit 1.

[0092] In some examples, the computer 7 can include typical hardware (such as a processor) and an operating system for running various software programs and / or communication applications.

[0093] In some examples, the computer 7 can also include any suitable input / output devices suitable for access by a physician or a physicist, as well as I / O interfaces, storage devices, memories, keyboards, mice, monitors, printers, scanners, etc. The computer 7 can also be networked with other computer systems. The computer 7 is also suitable for transferring data such as shared treatment plans between different medical devices.

[0094] In some examples, once the treatment plan is completed, it can be stored in the database of the computer 7 for future use. In some examples, once the treatment plan is completed, the radiation dose distribution for each stage (or control point) is associated with the corresponding angle of the rotating gantry 4, the position of the treatment couch 5, and the configuration of the MLC. Next, when implementing each control point, the corresponding angle of the rotating gantry 4, the position of the treatment couch 5, or the rod of the MLC is changed accordingly.

[0095] In some examples, the radiotherapy device can further include a treatment plan generation unit. The treatment plan generation unit can generate a treatment plan for the target object 6 based on a plurality of data inputted into the computer 7 by a physician or a physicist. The treatment plan can include a predicted radiation dose distribution, i.e., a planned dose distribution.

[0096] In some examples, the radiotherapy device can further include a patient positioning unit. The patient positioning module can position the target object 6 relative to the isocenter of the rotating gantry 4.

[0097] FIG. 4 is a schematic diagram showing the acquisition of operating parameters by the peripheral monitoring device 13 according to an example of the present disclosure.

[0098] In some examples, the operating parameters can include first parameters or second parameters. In some examples, the first parameters include the number of output jumps, the shape of the irradiation field, the position coordinates of the target region, and the rotation angle of the rotating gantry 4 in the radiotherapy device, etc.

[0099] In some examples, the second parameters can include the beam shape and the beam angle. In this case, both the first parameters or the second parameters can be verified, which can expand the source of the parameters.

[0100] In some examples, the first parameters are acquired by the built-in sensors.

[0101] In some examples, the built-in sensors can include sensors arranged on each rod of the MLC for monitoring the displacement amount of the rod. For example, displacement sensors, pressure sensors, etc. In this case, by monitoring the displacement amount of each rod, the shape of the irradiation field can be detected accordingly.

[0102] In some examples, the built-in sensors can include angle sensors arranged on the rotating gantry 4 for monitoring the rotation angle of the rotating gantry 4. In this way, the rotation angle of the rotating gantry 4 can be conveniently detected.

[0103] In some examples, the built-in sensors can include displacement sensors or angle sensors arranged on the treatment couch 5. This case is applicable to the scenario where the treatment couch 5 is movable.

[0104] Referring to FIG. 4, in some examples, the second parameter can be collected by the external monitoring device 13.

[0105] In some examples, the external monitoring device 13 can include a beam profiler. In some examples, the external monitoring device 13 can include a tilt meter. The beam profiler can be used to probe the beam shape or beam intensity variation. The tilt meter can be used to measure the beam angle. In this case, the computer 7 can calculate the dose distribution in the patient according to the beam shape, the beam angle, and the treatment time, the output number of jumps, etc.

[0106] In this case, the collection of the operating parameters can be performed by the built-in sensors of the radiotherapy device or the external monitoring device 13 arranged outside the radiotherapy device.

[0107] FIG. 5 is a flowchart illustrating one embodiment of a verification method according to examples of the present disclosure.

[0108] Referring to FIG. 5, the present disclosure also provides a method (hereinafter sometimes referred to as a verification method) for verifying whether a radiotherapy device has faithfully implemented a treatment plan. The radiotherapy device can sequentially implement a plurality of control points to output a beam to a target region of the target object 6 in the process of treating the target object 6.

[0109] In some examples, the verification method can include a step S100 of applying a treatment plan. The treatment plan can include a plurality of control points, and a period between two adjacent control points can be a verification period. In some examples, a planned dose distribution to be delivered by the radiotherapy device corresponding to each control point can be calculated in advance.

[0110] In some examples, the verification method can include a step S200 of calculating an implemented dose distribution according to the operating parameters of the radiotherapy device.

[0111] In some examples, the implemented dose distribution can be calculated according to the operating parameters of the radiotherapy device in the verification period formed by the current control point and the last control point adjacent to the current control point.

[0112] In some examples, in the step S200, the current control point can be implemented by the radiotherapy device. The current control point is the control point being implemented by the radiotherapy device.

[0113] In some examples, the verification method can include a step S300 of comparing the difference between the planned dose distribution and the implemented dose distribution.

[0114] In some examples, the verification method can include a step S400 of judging whether the treatment plan has been faithfully implemented based on the difference.

[0115] In the present disclosure, a radiotherapy device implements a plurality of control points in sequence to output a beam to a target region, thereby treating the target region, and a method of the present disclosure verifies whether the radiotherapy device faithfully implements a treatment plan within a verification period formed by two adjacent control points. For example, after the radiotherapy device implements a previous control point adjacent to a current control point, causing a change in an operating parameter of the radiotherapy device, an implemented dose distribution delivered by the radiotherapy device can be obtained based on the changed operating parameter of the radiotherapy device, and by comparing a difference between the implemented dose distribution and a planned dose distribution, it can be determined whether the treatment plan is faithfully implemented based on the difference. Thus, during implementation of the treatment plan by the radiotherapy device, the implementation of the radiotherapy device can be continuously verified at each verification period by the above method, and it can be determined in real time whether the radiotherapy device faithfully implements the treatment plan.

[0116] In some examples, the reason why the radiotherapy device does not faithfully implement the treatment plan can be that the treatment plan data is damaged, a human error selects and sets a wrong treatment plan or loads a wrong treatment plan, a lead screw in a multi-leaf collimator is worn, etc. The treatment plan data is damaged, for example, data loss or damage occurs when the treatment plan is transmitted between different computer systems. The human error loads a wrong treatment plan, for example, a doctor or a physicist loads a treatment plan that should be applied to another patient.

[0117] FIG. 6 is a flowchart illustrating another embodiment of a verification method according to an example of the present disclosure.

[0118] Referring to FIG. 6, in some examples, the verification method can include a step S500 of determining whether the difference is less than a preset value.

[0119] In some examples, if the difference is less than the preset value, it is determined that the planned dose distribution is faithfully implemented. If the difference is not less than the preset value, it is determined that the planned dose distribution is not faithfully implemented. In this case, based on the setting of the preset value, it can be determined whether the difference is acceptable. If the difference is small (i.e., the difference is less than the preset value), it can be determined that the implemented dose distribution is acceptable (i.e., the planned dose distribution is faithfully implemented). If the difference is large (i.e., the difference is not less than the preset value), it can be determined that the implemented dose distribution is not acceptable (i.e., the planned dose distribution is not faithfully implemented).

[0120] In some examples, the verification method can include a step S610 of continuing to implement a subsequent control point if the difference is less than the preset value. In some examples, the verification method can include a step S620 of stopping implementation of the subsequent control point if the difference is not less than the preset value. In this case, the difference not being less than the preset value means that the planned dose distribution of the previous control point adjacent to the current control point is not faithfully implemented, and by stopping implementation of the subsequent control point, irreversible treatment consequences to the target object 6 can be reduced.

[0121] In some examples, the planned dose distribution to be delivered by the radiation therapy device can be pre-calculated according to the treatment plan. In some examples, the planned dose distribution can be stored in a memory. In this case, the planned dose distribution corresponding to each control point can be pre-calculated according to the treatment plan, and the planned dose distribution can be conveniently retrieved when comparison and judgment are subsequently performed by storing the calculated planned dose distribution in the memory.

[0122] In other examples, the treatment plan can include a plurality of planned dose distributions. In other words, the planned dose distribution can be regarded as a part of the treatment plan. The planned dose distribution can be added to the conventional treatment plan to form the treatment plan of the present disclosure after being calculated.

[0123] In some examples, each planned dose distribution can be one-to-one labeled with each control point in the treatment plan.

[0124] In some examples, the verification period formed by the current control point and the previous control point adjacent to the current control point is the current verification period, and the dose distribution calculated by the radiation therapy device in the current verification period is the implementation dose distribution. In other words, the dose distribution calculated in the single current verification period can be taken as the implementation dose distribution. In this case, by taking the dose distribution calculated in the current verification period as the implementation dose distribution, the calculation process can be accelerated compared to the cumulative dose distribution obtained by calculating all the verification periods before the calculation.

[0125] In other examples, the verification period formed by the current control point and the previous control point adjacent to the current control point is the current verification period, and the dose distribution calculated by the radiation therapy device in the current verification period can be accumulated with the dose distribution calculated by the radiation therapy device in the verification period before the current verification period to obtain the implementation dose distribution. In this case, the implementation dose distribution can also be referred to as the cumulative dose distribution, and by accumulating the dose distribution calculated in the previous verification period with the dose distribution obtained in the previous verification period to obtain the implementation dose distribution, on the one hand, the cumulative error during treatment will not be ignored, and on the other hand, because the cumulative dose distribution can more accurately reflect the overall effect of the treatment, the accuracy of the judgment and comparison can be improved.

[0126] In some examples, the verification period before the current verification period can be all the verification periods before the current verification period. In some examples, the verification period before the current verification period can be part of the verification periods before the current verification period. In this case, by all the verification periods, the accuracy of the calculation result can be improved; by part of the verification periods, the calculation amount can be reduced.

[0127] In some examples, the dose distribution can be calculated for at least one of the irradiation points in the irradiation field by random sampling and compared with the corresponding planned dose distribution. In this case, if the dose distribution calculated for the irradiation point selected by random sampling is within the allowable difference, it can be determined that the dose distribution calculated for the irradiation point in the region adjacent to the irradiation point is also within the allowable difference. The dose distribution calculated by random sampling can reduce the amount of calculation and improve the calculation speed.

[0128] In some examples, the subsequent control point can be continued when the comparison is made. The subsequent control point can include the current control point.

[0129] In some examples, the current control point can be continued when the comparison is made. In other words, the radiotherapy device can continue to operate to implement the current control point when the comparison is made. In this case, the verification process during the verification period and the implementation process of the current control point can be performed uninterruptedly, and the operation efficiency of the radiotherapy device can be improved. Even if the treatment plan of the previous control point adjacent to the current control point is not executed faithfully, the treatment deviation caused by the implementation of the current control point is within the acceptable deviation range.

[0130] In some examples, only the primary dose delivered by the first collision of the beam in the target object is considered without considering the scatter dose when calculating the planned dose distribution based on the treatment plan and when calculating the implemented dose distribution based on the operating parameters obtained during the treatment. In this way, the increase in the amount of calculation caused by additional calculation of the scatter dose can be reduced.

[0131] In other examples, both the primary dose delivered by the first collision of the beam in the target object and the scatter dose are considered when calculating the planned dose distribution based on the treatment plan and when calculating the implemented dose distribution based on the operating parameters obtained during the treatment. In this way, the implemented dose distribution can be calculated by considering both the primary dose and the scatter dose, and more accurate implemented dose distribution can be obtained, and the accuracy of the judgment can be improved.

[0132] FIG. 7 is a flowchart illustrating implementation of a control point according to an example of the present disclosure.

[0133] Referring to FIG. 7, a treatment plan can be composed of a series of control points CP0, CP1, CP2, …, CPN that vary with time or implemented output monitor units (MUs). The output monitor unit can be a unit of radiation of a radiotherapy device, which has a one-to-one relationship with a dose under certain reference conditions.

[0134] The meanings of the parameters in the control points are as follows: t is time; MU is the number of output jumps; (x, y, z) is the coordinate of the position of the target region; a is the rotation angle of the rotating gantry 4 in the YZ plane around the central axis thereof (the rotation axis of the rotating gantry 4 parallel to the X axis); b is the rotation angle or deflection angle of the rotating gantry 4 towards the x axis direction; and aperture is the field aperture.

[0135] A treatment plan requires a radiotherapy device to be in a specific state at a specific time and to deliver a certain number of output jumps accurately. In some examples, accurately delivering a certain number of output jumps requires various mechanical components of the radiotherapy device (such as the rotating gantry 4, the radiation unit 2, the imaging unit 3, the treatment bed 5, etc.) to be accurately coordinated with the radio dose and different dose rates.

[0136] The inventors consider that, when designing a treatment plan, a treatment planning system makes assumptions about the capabilities of the radiotherapy device. For example, from time t1 to time t2, the rotating gantry 4 needs to move from gantry angle g1 to gantry angle g2, and at the same time, the radiotherapy device needs to deliver a certain number of output jumps. However, these assumptions can exceed the actual capabilities of the radiotherapy device, resulting in an actual treatment dose distribution that does not match the planned dose distribution determined by the treatment plan. For example, the radiotherapy device can have experienced problems such as wear and tear of the lead screw in the multi-leaf collimator after a QA or several actual treatments on the human body, and similar problems can cause a large difference between the actual treatment dose distribution and the planned dose distribution.

[0137] Therefore, the verification method of the present disclosure requires verifying the difference between the actual treatment dose distribution and the planned dose distribution at each verification period or a selected number of verification periods in radiotherapy, so as to determine whether the radiotherapy device has faithfully executed the treatment plan. In this way, it can be ensured that the actual output actual treatment dose distribution is within the allowable error range, thereby reducing the harm caused to the target object 6 by the incorrect actual treatment dose distribution and improving the safety of the treatment of the target object 6.

[0138] In some examples, in step S620, stopping the implementation of the subsequent control point can be stopping the execution of the current control point and the control points after the current control point.

[0139] In some examples, when the comparison is made, the implementation of the subsequent control point can be continued. Continuing the implementation of the subsequent control point means that not only the current control point is implemented, but also the control points after the current control point can be implemented. In this way, the treatment process can be accelerated, or the difference determination result can not affect the treatment process.

[0140] In some examples, the running parameters can include the first parameters or the second parameters. In some examples, the first parameters can include the output number of jumps, the shape of the irradiation field, the position coordinates of the target region, and the rotation angle of the rotating gantry 4 in the radiotherapy device. In this case, if the output number of jumps, the shape of the irradiation field, the position coordinates of the target region, and the rotation angle of the rotating gantry 4 in the radiotherapy device at a certain moment are determined, the beam output by the radiation unit 2 at this moment can be determined accordingly. The verification method of the present disclosure can determine the implemented dose distribution according to the beam output by the radiation unit 2 at this moment.

[0141] In some examples, the second parameters can include the beam shape and the beam angle. In this case, the verification can be performed through both the first parameters or the second parameters, and the source of the parameters can be expanded. In some examples, the second parameters can also include the output number of jumps and the position coordinates of the target region. In this case, if the output number of jumps, the position coordinates of the target region, the beam shape, and the beam angle at a certain moment are determined, the beam output by the radiation unit 2 at this moment can be determined accordingly. The verification method of the present disclosure can determine the implemented dose distribution according to the beam output by the radiation unit 2 at this moment.

[0142] In some examples, the first parameters are collected by the built-in sensors.

[0143] In some examples, the built-in sensors can include sensors arranged on each screw rod of the MLC for monitoring the displacement amount of the screw rod. For example, displacement sensors, pressure sensors, etc. In this case, by monitoring the displacement amount of each screw rod, the shape of the irradiation field can be detected accordingly.

[0144] In some examples, the built-in sensors can include angle sensors arranged on the rotating gantry 4 for monitoring the rotation angle of the rotating gantry 4. In this way, the rotation angle of the rotating gantry 4 can be conveniently detected.

[0145] In some examples, the built-in sensors can include displacement sensors or angle sensors arranged on the treatment bed 5. This case is suitable for the scenario where the treatment bed 5 is movable.

[0146] Referring to FIG. 4, in some examples, the second parameters can be collected by the external monitoring device 13. In this case, in the case where the parameters collected by the built-in sensors cannot be known or are difficult to be known, the external monitoring device 13 installed outside the radiotherapy device can be used to collect the running parameters.

[0147] In some examples, the peripheral monitoring device 13 may include a detector. In some examples, the peripheral monitoring device 13 may include a tiltmeter. The detector may be used to detect changes in beam shape or beam intensity. The tiltmeter may be used to measure beam angle. In this case, the computer 7 can calculate the dose distribution in the patient's body based on the beam shape, beam angle, treatment time, and number of output jumps, etc.

[0148] Figure 8 is a flowchart illustrating yet another embodiment of the verification method involved in the examples of this disclosure.

[0149] The verification method of this disclosure will be described in detail below with reference to Figure 8. In some examples, the flowchart shown in Figure 8 may be a detailed description of the steps after step S200.

[0150] In some examples, the dose distribution Di(x,y,z) after CPi delivery can be pre-calculated, where i = 1,2,…,N.

[0151] In some examples, the difference can be represented by σ.

[0152] In some examples, the verification method may include the following steps:

[0153] Implement control point CP1: Obtain the planned dose distribution D1 at time t1; and calculate the actual dose distribution D1 during the verification period τ1. * τ1 is the verification period determined by time t0 and time t1.

[0154] Determine D1 and D1 * Is the difference less than σ?

[0155] If the difference is not less than σ, treatment is interrupted. In some examples, subsequent control points can be implemented after the difference issue is resolved.

[0156] If the difference is less than σ, then continue with the subsequent control points.

[0157] For example: if the difference is less than σ, then continue implementing control point CPi: to obtain t i The planned dose distribution Di at time t; and calculate τ i Actual dose distribution Di * . τ i For t i-1 Time and t i The verification period determined by the time.

[0158] Determine Di and Di * Is the difference less than σ?

[0159] If the difference is not less than σ, treatment is interrupted. In some examples, subsequent control points can be implemented after the difference issue is resolved.

[0160] Continue implementing subsequent control points following the methods described above.

[0161] Implement control point CPN: obtain t N The planned dose distribution DN at time t; and calculate τ N Actual dose distribution DN * . τ N For t N-1 Time and t N The verification period determined by the time.

[0162] Determine DN and DN * Is the difference less than σ?

[0163] If the difference is not less than σ, treatment is interrupted. In some examples, subsequent control points can be implemented after the difference issue is resolved.

[0164] In some examples, the value of τ can be different for each verification period. This allows for matching the changes in runtime parameters within each verification period.

[0165] In some examples, the value of τ can be kept the same across all validation periods. This allows for consistent τ values ​​across all validation periods when designing the treatment plan. In this case, it facilitates standardized planning of validation period lengths, ensures accurate judgments within each validation period, and guarantees sufficient coordination between the operation of the radiotherapy equipment and the generation of judgments.

[0166] In some examples, the value of the validation period τ near the end of treatment can be greater than the value of the validation period τ near the beginning of treatment. In some examples, the value of the validation period τ can gradually increase from the start to the end of treatment.

[0167] In some examples, the number of validations during the validation period was less closer to the end of treatment than the number of validations during the validation period closer to the beginning of treatment. For example, from t1 to t... 10 Verification will be performed at each verification period between moments, and t i To t i+10 Several verification periods can be selected for verification. In this case, if no errors are found in the verifications performed during multiple verification periods close to the start of treatment, the number of verifications performed during verification periods close to the end of treatment can be reduced. This reduces the number of verifications while ensuring the effectiveness of the verification, thereby improving the operating efficiency of the radiotherapy equipment.

[0168] In some examples, the time interval of the verification period can match the running state of the device that causes the change of the running parameter. Thus, it can be ensured that the change of the running parameter is calculated after the device running state completes the change of the next stage, and a more accurate implementation dose distribution can be calculated. For example, the MLC leaf blades need to undergo a certain change time from the start of the change to the completion of the change in each verification period, and thus the current verification must be performed after the MLC leaf blades complete the change, so that a more accurate verification result can be obtained. The value of the previous verification period is preferably not less than the change time, so that the current verification can be performed more smoothly after the previous verification period completes the verification and the MLC leaf blades complete the change. In the above example, it can be considered that the time interval of the verification period matches the change time of the MLC leaf blades, and the running state of the device is the state of the MLC leaf blades.

[0169] In some examples, the difference can include at least one of a difference percentage and an equivalent distance. In this case, if the planned dose distribution and the actual dose distribution at a point (x, y, z) in the patient body at a certain time point are D1(x, y, z) and D2(x, y, z) respectively, the difference percentage is calculated as: Δ% = (| (D1(x, y, z) - D2(x, y, z)) | / max(D1, D2)) x 100%, || is an absolute value symbol, and the equivalent distance is the distance between a point having the same dose as the same point in the planned dose distribution around a point in the implementation dose distribution. In a region with a large dose gradient, a small geometric error can cause a large percentage difference. Thus, only the combination of the difference percentage and the equivalent distance can represent the size of the difference, and the difference represented by the combination of the difference percentage and the equivalent distance can obtain a more accurate difference value. For example, 3%-2mm represents a difference percentage of 3% and an equivalent distance of 2mm.

[0170] Using the equivalent distance to judge is suitable for the case where a large dose gradient appears. In a position with a large dose gradient, the difference percentage of two points close in distance can also exceed the preset value of the difference percentage, but the value of the equivalent distance can be small at this time, but the difference can still be considered acceptable. In this case, using the combination of the difference percentage and the equivalent distance to judge the difference can obtain a more accurate difference judgment result.

[0171] In some examples, only the primary dose delivered by the beam first colliding in the target object is considered when calculating the planned dose distribution based on the treatment plan, and the scatter dose is not considered when calculating the implementation dose distribution according to the running parameter obtained during the treatment. Thus, the increase in the amount of operation caused by additional calculation of the scatter dose can be reduced.

[0172] In some examples, both the primary dose delivered by the beam at the first impact in the target object and the scattered dose are considered when calculating the planned dose distribution based on the treatment plan, and when calculating the delivered dose distribution based on the obtained operational parameters during treatment. In this way, the delivered dose distribution is calculated by considering both the primary dose and the scattered dose, which can result in a more accurate delivered dose distribution and improve the accuracy of the judgment.

[0173] In some examples, the delivered dose distribution can be calculated by randomly selecting at least one irradiation point in the irradiation field and compared with the corresponding planned dose distribution. The irradiation point can be a point or region on the target region irradiated by the beam, and the irradiation point corresponds to the beam one by one. In this case, if the delivered dose distribution calculated by the randomly selected irradiation point is within the allowed difference, it can be determined that the delivered dose distribution calculated by the irradiation point adjacent to the irradiation point is within the allowed difference. In this way, the delivered dose distribution is calculated by random sampling, which can reduce the amount of calculation and improve the calculation speed.

[0174] In some examples, the value or time interval of the verification period can be 0.1 seconds to 2 seconds. Preferably, it can be 1 second.

[0175] In some examples, the radiotherapy device can record 1 to 10 operational parameters per second. Correspondingly, the radiotherapy device can calculate the delivered dose distribution each time. In some examples, the judgment of the difference can be based on the delivered dose distribution calculated at any time. In some examples, the judgment of the difference can be based on the delivered dose distribution calculated based on the last operational parameter. In some examples, the calculated delivered dose distribution can be selected to participate in the comparison with the planned dose distribution and obtain a judgment result. If the number of times that the judgment result passes reaches a certain value, it is determined that the treatment plan is executed faithfully.

[0176] The present disclosure also provides an electronic device including a processor and a memory, wherein the processor executes a program stored in the memory to implement the verification method of the present disclosure.

[0177] The fourth aspect of the present disclosure provides a computer-readable storage medium storing at least one instruction, wherein the at least one instruction is executed by a processor to implement the verification method of the present disclosure.

[0178] In some examples, the above-mentioned electronic device and computer-readable storage medium can be part of the computer 7.

[0179] According to the present disclosure, a method, a radiotherapy device, an electronic device and a computer readable storage medium are provided, which can judge whether the radiotherapy device has faithfully executed the treatment plan in real time by continuously verifying the execution of the radiotherapy device at each verification period during the execution of the treatment plan by the radiotherapy device.

[0180] While particular examples of the present disclosure have been shown and described, it will be obvious to those skilled in the art that, based upon the teachings herein, changes and modifications can be made in the present disclosure without departing from the true spirit and scope of the present disclosure and its broader aspects, and it is therefore intended that all such alterations and modifications be considered as within the true spirit and scope of the present disclosure. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that, in general, the terms used herein are generally intended to be "open" terms (for example, the term "including" should be interpreted as "including but not limited to"; the term "having" should be interpreted as "having at least;" the term "includes" should be interpreted as "includes but is not limited to," and the like).

[0181] Aspects of the subject matter described herein can be used alone or in combination with any one or more of the other aspects of the present disclosure.

Claims

1. A method for verifying whether a radiotherapy device has faithfully executed a treatment plan, characterized in that, The method comprises: using the treatment plan, the treatment plan comprising a plurality of control points, defining a time period between two adjacent control points as a verification time period, and pre-calculating a planned dose distribution corresponding to each control point to be delivered by the radiotherapy device; calculating an implemented dose distribution within the verification time period formed by the current control point and the last control point adjacent to the current control point according to operation parameters of the radiotherapy device; comparing the difference between the planned dose distribution and the implemented dose distribution within the verification time period; judging whether the treatment plan is faithfully executed based on the difference.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein, If the difference is less than a preset value, it indicates that the planned dose distribution is faithfully executed; if the difference is not less than the preset value, it indicates that the planned dose distribution is not faithfully executed.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein, If the difference is less than the preset value, the subsequent control points are continuously implemented; if the difference is not less than the preset value, the subsequent control points are stopped.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein, When the comparison is performed, the subsequent control points are continuously implemented.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein, The operation parameters comprise first parameters or second parameters, the first parameters comprising output steps, field shapes, position coordinates of target regions, and rotation angles of rotating gantries in the radiotherapy device, and the second parameters comprising beam shapes and beam angles.

6. The method of claim 5, wherein, The first parameters are collected by built-in sensors, and the second parameters are collected by external monitoring devices.

7. The method of claim 1, wherein, The difference comprises at least one of a difference percentage and an isodose distance.

8. The method of claim 1, wherein, When the planned dose distribution is calculated based on the treatment plan, and when the implemented dose distribution is calculated according to the operation parameters obtained during treatment, only primary doses delivered by beams first colliding in a target object are considered without considering scattering doses.

9. The method of claim 1, wherein, When the planned dose distribution is calculated based on the treatment plan, and when the implemented dose distribution is calculated according to the operation parameters obtained during treatment, both primary doses delivered by beams first colliding in a target object and scattering doses are considered.

10. The method of claim 1, wherein, The planned dose distribution to be delivered by the radiotherapy device is pre-calculated according to the treatment plan, and the planned dose distribution is stored in a memory.

11. The method of claim 1, wherein, The verification time period formed by the current control point and the last control point adjacent to the current control point is defined as a current verification time period, and the dose distribution calculated by the radiotherapy device in the current verification time period is the implemented dose distribution.

12. The method of claim 1, wherein, The verification time period formed by the current control point and the last control point adjacent to the current control point is defined as a current verification time period, and the dose distribution calculated by the radiotherapy device in the current verification time period is added to the dose distribution calculated by the radiotherapy device in a verification time period before the current verification time period to obtain the implemented dose distribution.

13. The method of claim 1, wherein, At least one irradiation point in an irradiation field is selected by random sampling to calculate the implemented dose and compare with the corresponding planned dose distribution.

14. The method of claim 1, wherein, The number of times of verification in the verification time period near the end of the treatment is less than the number of times of verification in the verification time period near the beginning of the treatment.

15. The method of claim 1, wherein, The time interval of the verification period matches the operating state of the device causing the operating parameter change.

16. A radiotherapy verification apparatus, characterized in that, The radiotherapy verification comprises a preprocessing unit, a calculating unit, a comparing unit and a judging unit, the preprocessing unit is configured to apply the treatment plan, the treatment plan comprises a plurality of control points and a planned dose distribution corresponding to the plurality of control points, and a time interval between two adjacent control points is a verification period; The calculating unit is configured to calculate an implemented dose distribution delivered by the radiotherapy device in the verification period formed by the current control point and the last control point adjacent to the current control point according to an operating parameter of the radiotherapy device; The comparing unit is configured to compare the difference between the planned dose distribution and the implemented dose distribution; and the judging unit is configured to judge whether the treatment plan is faithfully executed based on the difference.

17. An electronic device, comprising: The electronic device comprises a processor and a memory, and the processor executes a program stored in the memory to implement the method in any one of claims 1-15.

18. A computer-readable storage medium, characterized in that, The computer readable storage medium stores at least one instruction, and the at least one instruction is executed by the processor to implement the method in any one of claims 1-15.

Images