Literature DB >> 24029721

Improved efficiency of multi-criteria IMPT treatment planning using iterative resampling of randomly placed pencil beams.

S van de Water1, A C Kraan, S Breedveld, W Schillemans, D N Teguh, H M Kooy, T M Madden, B J M Heijmen, M S Hoogeman.   

Abstract

This study investigates whether 'pencil beam resampling', i.e. iterative selection and weight optimization of randomly placed pencil beams (PBs), reduces optimization time and improves plan quality for multi-criteria optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy, compared with traditional modes in which PBs are distributed over a regular grid. Resampling consisted of repeatedly performing: (1) random selection of candidate PBs from a very fine grid, (2) inverse multi-criteria optimization, and (3) exclusion of low-weight PBs. The newly selected candidate PBs were added to the PBs in the existing solution, causing the solution to improve with each iteration. Resampling and traditional regular grid planning were implemented into our in-house developed multi-criteria treatment planning system 'Erasmus iCycle'. The system optimizes objectives successively according to their priorities as defined in the so-called 'wish-list'. For five head-and-neck cancer patients and two PB widths (3 and 6 mm sigma at 230 MeV), treatment plans were generated using: (1) resampling, (2) anisotropic regular grids and (3) isotropic regular grids, while using varying sample sizes (resampling) or grid spacings (regular grid). We assessed differences in optimization time (for comparable plan quality) and in plan quality parameters (for comparable optimization time). Resampling reduced optimization time by a factor of 2.8 and 5.6 on average (7.8 and 17.0 at maximum) compared with the use of anisotropic and isotropic grids, respectively. Doses to organs-at-risk were generally reduced when using resampling, with median dose reductions ranging from 0.0 to 3.0 Gy (maximum: 14.3 Gy, relative: 0%-42%) compared with anisotropic grids and from -0.3 to 2.6 Gy (maximum: 11.4 Gy, relative: -4%-19%) compared with isotropic grids. Resampling was especially effective when using thin PBs (3 mm sigma). Resampling plans contained on average fewer PBs, energy layers and protons than anisotropic grid plans and more energy layers and protons than isotropic grid plans. In conclusion, resampling resulted in improved plan quality and in considerable optimization time reduction compared with traditional regular grid planning.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24029721     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/58/19/6969

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  9 in total

1.  Intensity modulated proton therapy.

Authors:  H M Kooy; C Grassberger
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-05-27       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  Automation in intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment planning-a review of recent innovations.

Authors:  Mohammad Hussein; Ben J M Heijmen; Dirk Verellen; Andrew Nisbet
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-09-04       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Data for TROTS - The Radiotherapy Optimisation Test Set.

Authors:  Sebastiaan Breedveld; Ben Heijmen
Journal:  Data Brief       Date:  2017-04-01

4.  Robust contour propagation using deep learning and image registration for online adaptive proton therapy of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Mohamed S Elmahdy; Thyrza Jagt; Roel Th Zinkstok; Yuchuan Qiao; Rahil Shahzad; Hessam Sokooti; Sahar Yousefi; Luca Incrocci; C A M Marijnen; Mischa Hoogeman; Marius Staring
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2019-07-12       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Simulation study using the spots deletion technique in spot scanning proton beam therapy for prostate cancers.

Authors:  Nobuyoshi Fukumitsu; Tomokatsu Hayakawa; Tomohiro Yamashita; Masayuki Mima; Yusuke Demizu; Takeshi Suzuki; Toshinori Soejima
Journal:  Mol Clin Oncol       Date:  2021-12-01

6.  Dose distribution effects of spot-scanning proton beam therapy equipped with a multi-leaf collimator for pediatric brain tumors.

Authors:  Nobuyoshi Fukumitsu; Tomohiro Yamashita; Masayuki Mima; Yusuke Demizu; Takeshi Suzuki; Toshinori Soejima
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 2.967

Review 7.  Roadmap: proton therapy physics and biology.

Authors:  Harald Paganetti; Chris Beltran; Stefan Both; Lei Dong; Jacob Flanz; Keith Furutani; Clemens Grassberger; David R Grosshans; Antje-Christin Knopf; Johannes A Langendijk; Hakan Nystrom; Katia Parodi; Bas W Raaymakers; Christian Richter; Gabriel O Sawakuchi; Marco Schippers; Simona F Shaitelman; B K Kevin Teo; Jan Unkelbach; Patrick Wohlfahrt; Tony Lomax
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2021-02-26       Impact factor: 4.174

8.  A new plan quality objective function for determining optimal collimator combinations in prostate cancer treatment with stereotactic body radiation therapy using CyberKnife.

Authors:  Maria Varnava; Iori Sumida; Hirokazu Mizuno; Hiroya Shiomi; Osamu Suzuki; Yasuo Yoshioka; Kazuhiko Ogawa
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-11-27       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 9.  Future Developments in Charged Particle Therapy: Improving Beam Delivery for Efficiency and Efficacy.

Authors:  Jacinta Yap; Andrea De Franco; Suzie Sheehy
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-12-09       Impact factor: 5.738

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.