Blake R Smith1, Daniel E Hyer2, Ryan T Flynn2, Wesley S Culberson1. 1. Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, 53705, USA. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To demonstrate a novel theoretical optimization design which considers beam spot and trimmer positioning in addition to beamlet weighting for dynamically collimated proton therapy (DCPT) treatments. Prior to this, the previous methods of plan optimization used to study this emerging technology relied upon an intuitive selection criterion to fix the trimmers blades for a uniform grid of beam spots before determining the individual beamlet weights. To evaluate the potential benefit from this new optimization design, a treatment planning optimization study was performed in order to compare the algorithm's functionality against the existing methods of plan optimization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A direct parameter optimization (DPO) method was developed to determine beam spot and trimmer positions cohesively with beamlet weighting for DCPT treatment plans. Gradients were numerically determined from applying small adjustments to the aforementioned parameters and quantifying the resulting impact on an objective function. This technique was compared to the conventional trimmer selection algorithm (TSA) which does not optimize spot position concurrently with trimmer position. Both planning methods were used to optimize a set of brain treatment plans, and the resulting dose distributions were compared with dose-volume histogram quantities in addition to target coverage, homogeneity, and conformity metrics. RESULTS: An overall improvement to the target conformity and healthy tissue sparing was achieved with DPO over TSA while maintaining an equivalent planning target volume (PTV) coverage index for the three brain patients evaluated in this study. On average, the conformity index improved by 5.5% when utilizing DPO. A similar improvement in reducing the dose to several organs at risk was also noted. CONCLUSION: Both the TSA and DPO planning methods can achieve highly conformal treatments with the dynamic collimation system (DCS) technology. However, an improvement in the target conformity and healthy tissue sparing was achieved by simultaneously optimizing beam spot position, trimmer location, and beamlet weights using DPO in comparison to the TSA technique.
PURPOSE: To demonstrate a novel theoretical optimization design which considers beam spot and trimmer positioning in addition to beamlet weighting for dynamically collimated proton therapy (DCPT) treatments. Prior to this, the previous methods of plan optimization used to study this emerging technology relied upon an intuitive selection criterion to fix the trimmers blades for a uniform grid of beam spots before determining the individual beamlet weights. To evaluate the potential benefit from this new optimization design, a treatment planning optimization study was performed in order to compare the algorithm's functionality against the existing methods of plan optimization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A direct parameter optimization (DPO) method was developed to determine beam spot and trimmer positions cohesively with beamlet weighting for DCPT treatment plans. Gradients were numerically determined from applying small adjustments to the aforementioned parameters and quantifying the resulting impact on an objective function. This technique was compared to the conventional trimmer selection algorithm (TSA) which does not optimize spot position concurrently with trimmer position. Both planning methods were used to optimize a set of brain treatment plans, and the resulting dose distributions were compared with dose-volume histogram quantities in addition to target coverage, homogeneity, and conformity metrics. RESULTS: An overall improvement to the target conformity and healthy tissue sparing was achieved with DPO over TSA while maintaining an equivalent planning target volume (PTV) coverage index for the three brain patients evaluated in this study. On average, the conformity index improved by 5.5% when utilizing DPO. A similar improvement in reducing the dose to several organs at risk was also noted. CONCLUSION: Both the TSA and DPO planning methods can achieve highly conformal treatments with the dynamic collimation system (DCS) technology. However, an improvement in the target conformity and healthy tissue sparing was achieved by simultaneously optimizing beam spot position, trimmer location, and beamlet weights using DPO in comparison to the TSA technique.
Authors: A J Lomax; T Bortfeld; G Goitein; J Debus; C Dykstra; P A Tercier; P A Coucke; R O Mirimanoff Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 1999-06 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Blake R Smith; Nicholas P Nelson; Theodore J Geoghegan; Kaustubh A Patwardhan; Patrick M Hill; Jen Yu; Alonso N Gutiérrez; Bryan G Allen; Daniel E Hyer Journal: Med Phys Date: 2022-02-21 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Nicholas P Nelson; Wesley S Culberson; Daniel E Hyer; Blake R Smith; Ryan T Flynn; Patrick M Hill Journal: Biomed Phys Eng Express Date: 2022-02-18
Authors: Nicholas P Nelson; Wesley S Culberson; Daniel E Hyer; Theodore J Geoghegan; Kaustubh A Patwardhan; Blake R Smith; Ryan T Flynn; Jen Yu; Suresh Rana; Alonso N Gutiérrez; Patrick M Hill Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-04-09 Impact factor: 4.506