Literature DB >> 18491548

Adaptive diffusion smoothing: a diffusion-based method to reduce IMRT field complexity.

Martha M Matuszak1, Edward W Larsen, Kyung-Wook Jee, Daniel L McShan, Benedick A Fraass.   

Abstract

Inverse-planned intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is often able to achieve complex treatment planning goals that are unattainable with forward three-dimensional (3D) conformal planning. However, the common use of IMRT has introduced several new challenges. The potentially high degree of modulation in IMRT beams risks the loss of some advantages of 3D planning, such as excellent target coverage and high delivery efficiency. Previous attempts to reduce beam complexity by smoothing often result in plan degradation because the smoothing algorithm cannot distinguish between areas of desirable and undesirable modulation. The purpose of this work is to introduce and evaluate adaptive diffusion smoothing (ADS), a novel procedure designed to preferentially reduce IMRT beam complexity. In this method, a discrete diffusion equation is used to smooth IMRT beams using diffusion coefficients, automatically defined for each beamlet, that dictate the degree of smoothing allowed for each beamlet. This yields a method that can distinguish between areas of desirable and undesirable modulation. The ADS method has been incorporated into our optimization system as a weighted cost function penalty, with two diffusion coefficient definitions designed to promote: (1) uniform smoothing everywhere or (2) smoothing based on cost function gradients with respect to the plan beamlet intensities. The ADS method (with both coefficient types) has been tested in a phantom and in two clinical examples (prostate and head/neck). Both types of diffusion coefficients produce plans with reduced modulation and minimal dosimetric impact, but the cost function gradient-based coefficients show more potential for reducing beam modulation without affecting dosimetric plan quality. In summary, adaptive diffusion smoothing is a promising tool for ensuring that only the necessary amount of beam modulation is used, promoting more efficient and accurate IMRT planning, QA, and delivery.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18491548      PMCID: PMC2673623          DOI: 10.1118/1.2889703

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  21 in total

1.  Intensity modulated photon beams subject to a minimal surface smoothing constraint.

Authors:  M Alber; F Nüsslin
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  Smoothing intensity-modulated beam profiles to improve the efficiency of delivery.

Authors:  S V Spirou; N Fournier-Bidoz; J Yang; C S Chui; C C Ling
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Beyond bixels: generalizing the optimization parameters for intensity modulated radiation therapy.

Authors:  Jerry Markman; Daniel A Low; Andrew W Beavis; Joseph O Deasy
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Adaptive anisotropic diffusion filtering of Monte Carlo dose distributions.

Authors:  Binhe Miao; Robert Jeraj; Shanglian Bao; Thomas R Mackie
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2003-09-07       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  Direct aperture optimization: a turnkey solution for step-and-shoot IMRT.

Authors:  D M Shepard; M A Earl; X A Li; S Naqvi; C Yu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Smoothing intensity-modulated treatment delivery under hardware constraints.

Authors:  Lijun Ma
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  A new smoothing procedure to reduce delivery segments for static MLC-based IMRT planning.

Authors:  Xuepeng Sun; Ping Xia
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Degeneracy, frequency response and filtering in IMRT optimization.

Authors:  Jorge Llacer; Nzhde Agazaryan; Timothy D Solberg; Claus Promberger
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2004-07-07       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Noise-adaptive nonlinear diffusion filtering of MR images with spatially varying noise levels.

Authors:  Alexei A Samsonov; Chris R Johnson
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 4.668

10.  Reduction of IMRT beam complexity through the use of beam modulation penalties in the objective function.

Authors:  Martha M Matuszak; Edward W Larsen; Benedick A Fraass
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 4.071

View more
  9 in total

1.  Inverse-optimized 3D conformal planning: minimizing complexity while achieving equivalence with beamlet IMRT in multiple clinical sites.

Authors:  Benedick A Fraass; Jennifer M Steers; Martha M Matuszak; Daniel L McShan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Improving IMRT delivery efficiency with reweighted L1-minimization for inverse planning.

Authors:  Hojin Kim; Stephen Becker; Rena Lee; Soonhyouk Lee; Sukyoung Shin; Emmanuel Candès; Lei Xing; Ruijiang Li
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Penalization of aperture complexity in inversely planned volumetric modulated arc therapy.

Authors:  Kelly C Younge; Martha M Matuszak; Jean M Moran; Daniel L McShan; Benedick A Fraass; Donald A Roberts
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Use of plan quality degradation to evaluate tradeoffs in delivery efficiency and clinical plan metrics arising from IMRT optimizer and sequencer compromises.

Authors:  Joel R Wilkie; Martha M Matuszak; Mary Feng; Jean M Moran; Benedick A Fraass
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Effect of fluence smoothing on the quality of intensity-modulated radiation treatment plans.

Authors:  Puzhakkal Niyas; Kallikuzhiyil Kochunny Abdullah; Manthala Padannayil Noufal; Thekkedath Sankaran Nair
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2016-03-07

6.  Optimal partial-arcs in VMAT treatment planning.

Authors:  Jeremiah Wala; Ehsan Salari; Wei Chen; David Craft
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2012-09-05       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  A dosimetric analysis of 6 MV versus 15 MV photon energy plans for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) of carcinoma of cervix.

Authors:  Atul Tyagi; Sanjay S Supe; Man P Singh
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2010-09-22

8.  Comparison of simple and complex liver intensity modulated radiotherapy.

Authors:  Mark T Lee; Thomas G Purdie; Cynthia L Eccles; Michael B Sharpe; Laura A Dawson
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2010-11-30       Impact factor: 3.481

9.  Evaluation of fluence-smoothing feature for three IMRT planning systems.

Authors:  Christopher J Anker; Brian Wang; Matt Tobler; Julie Chapek; Dennis C Shrieve; Ying J Hitchcock; Bill J Salter
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2010-04-16       Impact factor: 2.102

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.