Experimental comparison of linear regression and LSTM motion prediction models for MLC‐tracking on an MRI‐linac
Authors: Lombardo Elia , Liu Paul Z. Y. , Waddington David E. J. , Grover James , Whelan Brendan , Wong Esther , Reiner Michael , Corradini Stefanie , Belka Claus , Riboldi Marco , Kurz Christopher , Landry Guillaume , Keall Paul J. 
Published: October 2023

AbstractBackgroundMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI)‐guided radiotherapy with multileaf collimator (MLC)‐tracking is a promising technique for intra‐fractional motion management, achieving high dose conformality without prolonging treatment times. To improve beam‐target alignment, the geometric error due to system latency should be reduced by using temporal prediction.PurposeTo experimentally compare linear regression (LR) and long‐short‐term memory (LSTM) motion prediction models for MLC‐tracking on an MRI‐linac using multiple patient‐derived traces with different complexities.MethodsExperiments were performed on a prototype 1.0 T MRI‐linac capable of MLC‐tracking. A motion phantom was programmed to move a target in superior‐inferior (SI) direction according to eight lung cancer patient respiratory motion traces. Target centroid positions were localized from sagittal 2D cine MRIs acquired at 4 Hz using a template matching algorithm. The centroid positions were input to one of four motion prediction models. We used (1) a LSTM network which had been optimized in a previous study on patient data from another cohort (offline LSTM). We also used (2) the same LSTM model as a starting point for continuous re‐optimization of its weights during the experiment based on recent motion (offline+online LSTM). Furthermore, we implemented (3) a continuously updated LR model, which was solely based on recent motion (online LR). Finally, we used (4) the last available target centroid without any changes as a baseline (no‐predictor). The predictions of the models were used to shift the MLC aperture in real‐time. An electronic portal imaging device (EPID) was used to visualize the target and MLC aperture during the experiments. Based on the EPID frames, the root‐mean‐square error (RMSE) between the target and the MLC aperture positions was used to assess the performance of the different motion predictors. Each combination of motion trace and prediction model was repeated twice to test stability, for a total of 64 experiments.ResultsThe end‐to‐end latency of the system was measured to be (389 ± 15) ms and was successfully mitigated by both LR and LSTM models. The offline+online LSTM was found to outperform the other models for all investigated motion traces. It obtained a median RMSE over all traces of (2.8 ± 1.3) mm, compared to the (3.2 ± 1.9) mm of the offline LSTM, the (3.3 ± 1.4) mm of the online LR and the (4.4 ± 2.4) mm when using the no‐predictor. According to statistical tests, differences were significant (p‐value <0.05) among all models in a pair‐wise comparison, but for the offline LSTM and online LR pair. The offline+online LSTM was found to be more reproducible than the offline LSTM and the online LR with a maximum deviation in RMSE between two measurements of 10%.ConclusionsThis study represents the first experimental comparison of different prediction models for MRI‐guided MLC‐tracking using several patient‐derived respiratory motion traces. We have shown that among the investigated models, continuously re‐optimized LSTM networks are the most promising to account for the end‐to‐end system latency in MRI‐guided radiotherapy with MLC‐tracking.