No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
A multicriteria framework with voxel-dependent parameters for radiotherapy treatment plan optimizationa)
2. L. Xing, J. G. Li, A. Pugachev, Q. T. Le, and A. L. Boyer, “Estimation theory and model parameter selection for therapeutic treatment plan optimization,” Med. Phys. 26, 2348–2348 (1999).
3. K.-H. Küfer, H. W. Hamacher, T. R. Bortfeld, “A multicriteria optimization approach for inverse radiotherapy planning,” Presented at the 13th ICCR, Heidelberg (ICCR, Berlin: Springer, 2000), pp. 26–29.
4. C. Cotrutz, M. Lahanas, C. Kappas, and D. Baltas, “A multiobjective gradient-based dose optimization algorithm for external beam conformal radiotherapy,” Phys. Med. Biol. 46, 2161–2175 (2001).
6. M. Lahanas, E. Schreibmann, and D. Baltas, “Multiobjective inverse planning for intensity modulated radiotherapy with constraint-free gradient-based optimization algorithms,” Phys. Med. Biol. 48, 2843–2871 (2003).
7. K.-H. Küfer, A. Scherrer, M. Monz, F. Alonso, H. Trinkaus, T. Bortfeld, and C. Thieke, “Intensity-modulated radiotherapy: A large scale multi-criteria programming problem,” OR Spectrum 25, 223–249 (2003).
8. D. L. Craft, T. F. Halabi, H. A. Shih, and T. R. Bortfeld, “Approximating convex Pareto surfaces in multiobjective radiotherapy planning,” Med. Phys. 33, 3399–3399 (2006).
9. C. Thieke, K.-H. Küfer, M. Monz, A. Scherrer, F. Alonso, U. Oelfke, P. E. Huber, J. Debus, and T. Bortfeld, “A new concept for interactive radiotherapy planning with multicriteria optimization: First clinical evaluation,” Radiother. Oncol. 85, 292–298 (2007).
10. L. Shao, and M. Ehrgott, “Approximately solving multiobjective linear programmes in objective space and an application in radiotherapy treatment planning,” Math. Methods Oper. Res. 68, 257–276 (2008).
12. M. Monz, K. H. Küfer, T. R. Bortfeld, and C. Thieke, “Pareto navigation: Algorithmic foundation of interactive multi-criteria IMRT planning,” Phys. Med. Biol. 53, 985–998 (2008).
13. T. S. Hong, D. L. Craft, F. Carlsson, and T. R. Bortfeld, “Multicriteria optimization in intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment planning for locally advanced cancer of the pancreatic head,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 72, 1208–1214 (2008).
14. D. Craft, and M. Monz, “Simultaneous navigation of multiple Pareto surfaces, with an application to multicriteria IMRT planning with multiple beam angle configurations,” Med. Phys. 37, 736–741 (2010).
15. D. L. Craft, T. S. Hong, H. A. Shih, and T. R. Bortfeld, “Improved planning time and plan quality through multicriteria optimization for intensity-modulated radiotherapy,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 82, e83–e90 (2012).
16. M. Langer, E. K. Lee, J. O. Deasy, R. L. Rardin, and J. A. Deye, “Operations research applied to radiotherapy: An NCI-NSF-sponsored workshop, February 7–9, 2002,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 57, 762–768 (2003).
18. J. J. Wilkens, J. R. Alaly, K. Zakarian, W. L. Thorstad, and J. O. Deasy, “IMRT treatment planning based on prioritizing prescription goals,” Phys. Med. Biol. 52, 1675–1692 (2007).
19. J. O. Deasy, J. R. Alaly, and K. Zakaryan, “Obstacles and advances in intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment planning,” in Frontiers of Radiation Therapy and Oncology, edited by J. L. Meyer, B. D. Kavanagh, J. A. Purdy, and R. Timmerman (Karger, Basel, 2007), pp. 42–58.
20. V. H. Clark, Y. Chen, J. Wilkens, J. R. Alaly, K. Zakaryan, and J. O. Deasy, “IMRT treatment planning for prostate cancer using prioritized prescription optimization and mean-tail-dose functions,” Linear Algebra Appl. 428, 1345–1364 (2008).
21. T. Long, M. Matuszak, M. Feng, B. A. Fraass, R. K. T. Haken, and H. E. Romeijn, “Sensitivity analysis for lexicographic ordering in radiation therapy treatment planning,” Med. Phys. 39, 3445–3455 (2012).
25. M. L. Kessler, D. L. McShan, M. A. Epelman, K. A. Vineberg, A. Eisbruch, T. S. Lawrence, and B. A. Fraass, “Costlets: A generalized approach to cost functions for automated optimization of IMRT treatment plans,” Optim. Eng. 6, 421–448 (2005).
26. P. Xia, N. Yu, L. Xing, X. Sun, and L. J. Verhey, “Investigation of using a power function as a cost function in inverse planning optimization,” Med. Phys. 32, 920–920 (2005).
27. A. L. Hoffmann, D. den Hertog, A. Y. D. Siem, J. H. A. M. Kaanders, and H. Huizenga, “Convex reformulation of biologically-based multi-criteria intensity-modulated radiation therapy optimization including fractionation effects,” Phys. Med. Biol. 53, 6345–6362 (2008).
30. C. Wu, G. H. Olivera, R. Jeraj, H. Keller, and T. R. Mackie, “Treatment plan modification using voxel-based weighting factors/dose prescription,” Phys. Med. Biol. 48, 2479–2491 (2003).
31. Y. Yang, L. Xing, “Inverse treatment planning with adaptively evolving voxel-dependent penalty scheme,” Med. Phys. 31, 2839–2839 (2004).
32. S. Breedveld, P. R. M. Storchi, M. Keijzer, A. W. Heemink, and B. J. M. Heijmen, “A novel approach to multi-criteria inverse planning for IMRT,” Phys. Med. Biol. 52, 6339–6353 (2007).
33. Z. Shou, Y. Yang, C. Cotrutz, D. Levy, and L. Xing, “Quantitation of the a priori dosimetric capabilities of spatial points in inverse planning and its significant implication in defining IMRT solution space,” Phys. Med. Biol. 50, 1469–1482 (2005).
34. M. Zarepisheh, N. Li, L. Cervino, K. Moore, X. Jia, and S. Jiang, “A novel IMRT plan optimization algorithm for physician-driven plan tuning,” Med. Phys. 40, 340 (2013).
35. M. Zarepisheh, T. Long, N. Li, E. Romeijn, X. Jia, and S. Jiang, “A novel prior-knowledge-based optimization algorithm for automatic treatment planning and adaptive radiotherapy re-planning,” Med. Phys. 40, 530 (2013).
36. P. Lougovski, J. LeNoach, L. Zhu, Y. Ma, Y. Censor, and L. Xing, “Toward truly optimal IMRT dose distribution: Inverse planning with voxel-specific penalty,” Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 9, 629–636 (2010).
37. M. Ehrgott, Multicriteria Optimization (Springer, Berlin, 2005).
38. K. Miettinen, Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1999).
39. S. Breedveld, P. R. M. Storchi, M. Keijzer, and B. J. M. Heijmen, “Fast, multiple optimizations of quadratic dose objective functions in IMRT,” Phys. Med. Biol. 51, 3569–3579 (2006).
40. M. Karimi, N. Li, M. Zarepisheh, L. Cervino, X. Jia, K. Moore, and S. Jiang, “Selecting reference patients for automatic treatment planning using multiple geometrical features,” Med. Phys. 40, 379 (2013).
41. K. G. Murty, Linear Programming (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1983).
42. M. Zarepisheh, “Transformation of multiobjective optimization problems with natural and lexicographical ordering,” Ph.D. thesis, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran, 2011.
Article metrics loading...
To establish a new mathematical framework for radiotherapy
optimization with voxel-dependent optimization parameters.
In the treatment plan optimization problem for radiotherapy, a clinically acceptable plan is usually generated by an optimization process with weighting factors or reference doses adjusted for a set of the objective functions associated to the organs. Recent discoveries indicate that adjusting parameters associated with each voxel may lead to better plan quality. However, it is still unclear regarding the mathematical reasons behind it. Furthermore, questions about the objective function selection and parameter adjustment to assure Pareto optimality as well as the relationship between the optimal solutions obtained from the organ-based and voxel-based models remain unanswered. To answer these questions, the authors establish in this work a new mathematical framework equipped with two theorems.
The new framework clarifies the different consequences of adjusting organ-dependent and voxel-dependent parameters for the treatment plan optimization of radiation therapy, as well as the impact of using different objective functions on plan qualities and Pareto surfaces. The main discoveries are threefold: (1) While in the organ-based model the selection of the objective function has an impact on the quality of the optimized plans, this is no longer an issue for the voxel-based model since the Pareto surface is independent of the objective function selection and the entire Pareto surface could be generated as long as the objective function satisfies certain mathematical conditions; (2) All Pareto solutions generated by the organ-based model with different objective functions are parts of a unique Pareto surface
generated by the voxel-based model with any appropriate objective function; (3) A much larger Pareto surface is explored by adjusting voxel-dependent parameters than by adjusting organ-dependent parameters, possibly allowing for the generation of plans with better trade-offs among different clinical objectives.
The authors have developed a mathematical framework for radiotherapy
optimization using voxel-based parameters. The authors can improve the plan quality by adjusting voxel-based weighting factors and exploring the unique and large Pareto surface which include all the Pareto surfaces that can be generated by organ-based model using different objective functions.
Full text loading...
Most read this month