PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided Co-60 provides daily and intrafractional MRI soft tissue imaging for improved target and critical organ tracking. To increase delivery efficiency, the system uses three Co-60 sources at 120° apart, allowing up to 600 cGy combined dose rate at isocenter. Despite the potential tripling in output, creating a delivery plan that uses all three sources is considerably unintuitive. Here, the authors computerize the triplet orientation optimization using column generation, an approach that was demonstrated effective in integrated beam orientation and fluence optimization for noncoplanar therapies. To achieve a better plan quality without increasing the treatment time, the authors then solve a fluence map optimization (FMO) problem while regularizing the fluence maps to reduce the number of deliverable MLC segments. METHODS: Three patients-one prostate, one lung, and one head and neck boost plan (H&NBoost)-were evaluated in this study. For each patient, the beamlet doses were calculated using Monte Carlo, under a 0.35 T magnetic field, for 180 equally spaced coplanar beams grouped into 60 triplets. The beamlet size is 1.05 × 0.5 cm determined by the MLC leaf thickness and step size. The triplets were selected using the column generation algorithm. The FMO problem was formulated using an L2-norm dose fidelity term and an L1-norm anisotropic total variation regularization term, which allows controlling the number of MLC segments, and hence the treatment time, with minimal degradation to the dose. The authors' Fluence Regularization and Optimized Selection of Triplets (FROST) plans were compared against the clinical treatment plans (CLNs) produced by an experienced dosimetrist. PTV homogeneity, max dose, mean dose, D95, D98, and D99 were evaluated. OAR max and mean doses, as well as R50, defined as the ratio of the 50% isodose volume over the planning target volume were investigated. RESULTS: The mean PTV D95, D98, and D99 differ by +0.04%, +0.07%, and +0.25% of the prescription dose between planning methods. The mean PTV homogeneity was virtually same with values at 0.8788 (FROST) and 0.8812 (CLN). R50 decreased by 0.67 comparing FROST to CLN. On average, FROST reduced Dmax and Dmean of OARs by 7.30% and 6.08% of the prescription dose, respectively. The manual CLN planning processes required numerous trial and error runs. The FROST plans on the other hand required minimal human intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Efficient delivery of MRI-guided Co-60 therapy needs the output of multiple sources yet suffers from unintuitive and laborious manual beam selection processes. Computerized triplet orientation optimization improves both planning efficiency and plan dosimetry. The novel fluence map regularization provides additional controls over the number of MLC segments and treatment time.
PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided Co-60 provides daily and intrafractional MRI soft tissue imaging for improved target and critical organ tracking. To increase delivery efficiency, the system uses three Co-60 sources at 120° apart, allowing up to 600 cGy combined dose rate at isocenter. Despite the potential tripling in output, creating a delivery plan that uses all three sources is considerably unintuitive. Here, the authors computerize the triplet orientation optimization using column generation, an approach that was demonstrated effective in integrated beam orientation and fluence optimization for noncoplanar therapies. To achieve a better plan quality without increasing the treatment time, the authors then solve a fluence map optimization (FMO) problem while regularizing the fluence maps to reduce the number of deliverable MLC segments. METHODS: Three patients-one prostate, one lung, and one head and neck boost plan (H&NBoost)-were evaluated in this study. For each patient, the beamlet doses were calculated using Monte Carlo, under a 0.35 T magnetic field, for 180 equally spaced coplanar beams grouped into 60 triplets. The beamlet size is 1.05 × 0.5 cm determined by the MLC leaf thickness and step size. The triplets were selected using the column generation algorithm. The FMO problem was formulated using an L2-norm dose fidelity term and an L1-norm anisotropic total variation regularization term, which allows controlling the number of MLC segments, and hence the treatment time, with minimal degradation to the dose. The authors' Fluence Regularization and Optimized Selection of Triplets (FROST) plans were compared against the clinical treatment plans (CLNs) produced by an experienced dosimetrist. PTV homogeneity, max dose, mean dose, D95, D98, and D99 were evaluated. OAR max and mean doses, as well as R50, defined as the ratio of the 50% isodose volume over the planning target volume were investigated. RESULTS: The mean PTV D95, D98, and D99 differ by +0.04%, +0.07%, and +0.25% of the prescription dose between planning methods. The mean PTV homogeneity was virtually same with values at 0.8788 (FROST) and 0.8812 (CLN). R50 decreased by 0.67 comparing FROST to CLN. On average, FROST reduced Dmax and Dmean of OARs by 7.30% and 6.08% of the prescription dose, respectively. The manual CLN planning processes required numerous trial and error runs. The FROST plans on the other hand required minimal human intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Efficient delivery of MRI-guided Co-60 therapy needs the output of multiple sources yet suffers from unintuitive and laborious manual beam selection processes. Computerized triplet orientation optimization improves both planning efficiency and plan dosimetry. The novel fluence map regularization provides additional controls over the number of MLC segments and treatment time.
Authors: Yanle Hu; Leith Rankine; Olga L Green; Rojano Kashani; H Harold Li; Hua Li; Roger Nana; Vivian Rodriguez; Lakshmi Santanam; Shmaryu Shvartsman; James Victoria; H Omar Wooten; James F Dempsey; Sasa Mutic Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: H Omar Wooten; Vivian Rodriguez; Olga Green; Rojano Kashani; Lakshmi Santanam; Kari Tanderup; Sasa Mutic; H Harold Li Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2015-03-04 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Peng Dong; Victoria Yu; Dan Nguyen; John Demarco; Kaley Woods; Salime Boucher; Daniel A Low; Ke Sheng Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: H Omar Wooten; Olga Green; Min Yang; Todd DeWees; Rojano Kashani; Jeff Olsen; Jeff Michalski; Deshan Yang; Kari Tanderup; Yanle Hu; H Harold Li; Sasa Mutic Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Andrzej P Wojcieszynski; Stephen A Rosenberg; Jeffrey V Brower; Craig R Hullett; Mark W Geurts; Zacariah E Labby; Patrick M Hill; R Adam Bayliss; Bhudatt Paliwal; John E Bayouth; Paul M Harari; Michael F Bassetti Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2015-11-25 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: H Harold Li; Vivian L Rodriguez; Olga L Green; Yanle Hu; Rojano Kashani; H Omar Wooten; Deshan Yang; Sasa Mutic Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-10-25 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jean-Claude M Rwigema; Dan Nguyen; Dwight E Heron; Allen M Chen; Percy Lee; Pin-Chieh Wang; John A Vargo; Daniel A Low; M Saiful Huq; Stephen Tenn; Michael L Steinberg; Patrick Kupelian; Ke Sheng Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-12-05 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Yingli Yang; Minsong Cao; Ke Sheng; Yu Gao; Allen Chen; Mitch Kamrava; Percy Lee; Nzhde Agazaryan; James Lamb; David Thomas; Daniel Low; Peng Hu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Vyacheslav L Murzin; Kaley Woods; Vitali Moiseenko; Roshan Karunamuni; Kathryn R Tringale; Tyler M Seibert; Michael J Connor; Daniel R Simpson; Ke Sheng; Jona A Hattangadi-Gluth Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2018-03-05 Impact factor: 6.280