Literature DB >> 33523802

Pareto Optimal Projection Search (POPS): Automated Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning by Direct Search of the Pareto Surface.

Charles Huang, Yong Yang, Neil Panjwani, Stephen Boyd, Lei Xing.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Radiation therapy treatment planning is a time-consuming, iterative process with potentially high inter-planner variability. Fully automated treatment planning processes could reduce a planner's active treatment planning time and remove inter-planner variability, with the potential to tremendously improve patient turnover and quality of care. In developing fully automated algorithms for treatment planning, we have two main objectives: to produce plans that are 1) Pareto optimal and 2) clinically acceptable. Here, we propose the Pareto optimal projection search (POPS) algorithm, which provides a general framework for directly searching the Pareto front.
METHODS: Our POPS algorithm is a novel automated planning method that combines two main search processes: 1) gradient-free search in the decision variable space and 2) projection of decision variables to the Pareto front using the bisection method. We demonstrate the performance of POPS by comparing with clinical treatment plans. As one possible quantitative measure of treatment plan quality, we construct a clinical acceptability scoring function (SF) modified from the previously developed general evaluation metric (GEM).
RESULTS: On a dataset of 21 prostate cases collected as part of clinical workflow, our proposed POPS algorithm produces Pareto optimal plans that are clinically acceptable in regards to dose conformity, dose homogeneity, and sparing of organs-at-risk.
CONCLUSION: Our proposed POPS algorithm provides a general framework for fully automated treatment planning that achieves clinically acceptable dosimetric quality without requiring active planning from human planners. SIGNIFICANCE: Our fully automated POPS algorithm addresses many key limitations of other automated planning approaches, and we anticipate that it will substantially improve treatment planning workflow.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33523802      PMCID: PMC8526351          DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2021.3055822

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng        ISSN: 0018-9294            Impact factor:   4.756


  44 in total

1.  A simple scoring ratio to index the conformity of radiosurgical treatment plans. Technical note.

Authors:  I Paddick
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 5.115

2.  Multiobjective evolutionary optimization of the number of beams, their orientations and weights for intensity-modulated radiation therapy.

Authors:  Eduard Schreibmann; Michael Lahanas; Lei Xing; Dimos Baltas
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2004-03-07       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  The objective evaluation of alternative treatment plans: II. Score functions.

Authors:  S Shalev; D Viggars; M Carey; P Hahn
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 7.038

4.  Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc.

Authors:  Karl Otto
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  A novel reduced-order prioritized optimization method for radiation therapy treatment planning.

Authors:  Georgios Kalantzis; Aditya Apte
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 4.538

6.  How many plans are needed in an IMRT multi-objective plan database?

Authors:  David Craft; Thomas Bortfeld
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2008-05-01       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Comparison of Elekta VMAT with helical tomotherapy and fixed field IMRT: plan quality, delivery efficiency and accuracy.

Authors:  Min Rao; Wensha Yang; Fan Chen; Ke Sheng; Jinsong Ye; Vivek Mehta; David Shepard; Daliang Cao
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Automatic treatment planning facilitates fast generation of high-quality treatment plans for esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Christian Rønn Hansen; Morten Nielsen; Anders Smedegaard Bertelsen; Irene Hazell; Eva Holtved; Ruta Zukauskaite; Jon Kroll Bjerregaard; Carsten Brink; Uffe Bernchou
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  2017-08-25       Impact factor: 4.089

9.  Improved planning time and plan quality through multicriteria optimization for intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

Authors:  David L Craft; Theodore S Hong; Helen A Shih; Thomas R Bortfeld
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2011-02-06       Impact factor: 7.038

10.  Volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy vs. conventional IMRT in head-and-neck cancer: a comparative planning and dosimetric study.

Authors:  Wilko F A R Verbakel; Johan P Cuijpers; Daan Hoffmans; Michael Bieker; Ben J Slotman; Suresh Senan
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2009-05-01       Impact factor: 7.038

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.