TU‐G‐BRB‐02: A New Mathematical Framework for IMRT Inverse Planning with Voxel‐Dependent Optimization Parameters

M. Zarepisheh, A. Uribe‐sanchez, N. li, X. Jia, S. Jiang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To establish a new mathematical framework for IMRT treatment optimization with voxel‐dependent optimization parameters. Methods: In IMRT inverse treatment planning, a physician seeks for a plan to deliver a prescribed dose to the target while sparing the nearby healthy tissues. The conflict between these objectives makes the multi‐criteria optimization an appropriate tool. Traditionally, a clinically acceptable plan can be generated by fine‐tuning organ‐based parameters. We establish a new mathematical framework by using voxel‐based parameters for optimization. We introduce three different Pareto surfaces, prove the relationship between those surfaces, and compare voxel‐based and organ‐based methods. We prove some new theorems providing conditions under which the Pareto optimality is guaranteed. Results: The new mathematical framework has shown that: 1) Using an increasing voxel penalty function with an increasing derivative, in particular the popular power function, it is possible to explore the entire Pareto surface by changing voxel‐based weighting factors, which increases the chances of getting more desirable plan. 2) The Pareto optimality is always guaranteed by adjusting voxel‐based weighting factors. 3) If the plan is initially produced by adjusting organ‐based weighting factors, it is impossible to improve all the DVH curves at the same time by adjusting voxel‐based weighting factors. 4) A larger Pareto surface is explored by changing voxel‐based weighting factors than by changing organ‐based weighting factors, possibly leading to a plan with better trade‐offs. 5) The Pareto optimality is not necessarily guaranteed while we are adjusting the voxel reference doses, and hence, adjusting voxel‐based weighting factors is preferred in terms of preserving the Pareto optimality. Conclusions: We have developed a mathematical framework for IMRT optimization using voxel‐based parameters. We can improve the plan quality by adjusting voxel‐based weighting factors after organ‐based parameter adjustment. This work is supported by Varian Medical Systems through a Master Research Agreement.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3919
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume39
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2012

Fingerprint

Physicians
Therapeutics
Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

TU‐G‐BRB‐02 : A New Mathematical Framework for IMRT Inverse Planning with Voxel‐Dependent Optimization Parameters. / Zarepisheh, M.; Uribe‐sanchez, A.; li, N.; Jia, X.; Jiang, S.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 39, No. 6, 2012, p. 3919.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{1d949dd873c348939b6e9fbc26d48cd8,
title = "TU‐G‐BRB‐02: A New Mathematical Framework for IMRT Inverse Planning with Voxel‐Dependent Optimization Parameters",
abstract = "Purpose: To establish a new mathematical framework for IMRT treatment optimization with voxel‐dependent optimization parameters. Methods: In IMRT inverse treatment planning, a physician seeks for a plan to deliver a prescribed dose to the target while sparing the nearby healthy tissues. The conflict between these objectives makes the multi‐criteria optimization an appropriate tool. Traditionally, a clinically acceptable plan can be generated by fine‐tuning organ‐based parameters. We establish a new mathematical framework by using voxel‐based parameters for optimization. We introduce three different Pareto surfaces, prove the relationship between those surfaces, and compare voxel‐based and organ‐based methods. We prove some new theorems providing conditions under which the Pareto optimality is guaranteed. Results: The new mathematical framework has shown that: 1) Using an increasing voxel penalty function with an increasing derivative, in particular the popular power function, it is possible to explore the entire Pareto surface by changing voxel‐based weighting factors, which increases the chances of getting more desirable plan. 2) The Pareto optimality is always guaranteed by adjusting voxel‐based weighting factors. 3) If the plan is initially produced by adjusting organ‐based weighting factors, it is impossible to improve all the DVH curves at the same time by adjusting voxel‐based weighting factors. 4) A larger Pareto surface is explored by changing voxel‐based weighting factors than by changing organ‐based weighting factors, possibly leading to a plan with better trade‐offs. 5) The Pareto optimality is not necessarily guaranteed while we are adjusting the voxel reference doses, and hence, adjusting voxel‐based weighting factors is preferred in terms of preserving the Pareto optimality. Conclusions: We have developed a mathematical framework for IMRT optimization using voxel‐based parameters. We can improve the plan quality by adjusting voxel‐based weighting factors after organ‐based parameter adjustment. This work is supported by Varian Medical Systems through a Master Research Agreement.",
author = "M. Zarepisheh and A. Uribe‐sanchez and N. li and X. Jia and S. Jiang",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1118/1.4735997",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "39",
pages = "3919",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - TU‐G‐BRB‐02

T2 - A New Mathematical Framework for IMRT Inverse Planning with Voxel‐Dependent Optimization Parameters

AU - Zarepisheh, M.

AU - Uribe‐sanchez, A.

AU - li, N.

AU - Jia, X.

AU - Jiang, S.

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - Purpose: To establish a new mathematical framework for IMRT treatment optimization with voxel‐dependent optimization parameters. Methods: In IMRT inverse treatment planning, a physician seeks for a plan to deliver a prescribed dose to the target while sparing the nearby healthy tissues. The conflict between these objectives makes the multi‐criteria optimization an appropriate tool. Traditionally, a clinically acceptable plan can be generated by fine‐tuning organ‐based parameters. We establish a new mathematical framework by using voxel‐based parameters for optimization. We introduce three different Pareto surfaces, prove the relationship between those surfaces, and compare voxel‐based and organ‐based methods. We prove some new theorems providing conditions under which the Pareto optimality is guaranteed. Results: The new mathematical framework has shown that: 1) Using an increasing voxel penalty function with an increasing derivative, in particular the popular power function, it is possible to explore the entire Pareto surface by changing voxel‐based weighting factors, which increases the chances of getting more desirable plan. 2) The Pareto optimality is always guaranteed by adjusting voxel‐based weighting factors. 3) If the plan is initially produced by adjusting organ‐based weighting factors, it is impossible to improve all the DVH curves at the same time by adjusting voxel‐based weighting factors. 4) A larger Pareto surface is explored by changing voxel‐based weighting factors than by changing organ‐based weighting factors, possibly leading to a plan with better trade‐offs. 5) The Pareto optimality is not necessarily guaranteed while we are adjusting the voxel reference doses, and hence, adjusting voxel‐based weighting factors is preferred in terms of preserving the Pareto optimality. Conclusions: We have developed a mathematical framework for IMRT optimization using voxel‐based parameters. We can improve the plan quality by adjusting voxel‐based weighting factors after organ‐based parameter adjustment. This work is supported by Varian Medical Systems through a Master Research Agreement.

AB - Purpose: To establish a new mathematical framework for IMRT treatment optimization with voxel‐dependent optimization parameters. Methods: In IMRT inverse treatment planning, a physician seeks for a plan to deliver a prescribed dose to the target while sparing the nearby healthy tissues. The conflict between these objectives makes the multi‐criteria optimization an appropriate tool. Traditionally, a clinically acceptable plan can be generated by fine‐tuning organ‐based parameters. We establish a new mathematical framework by using voxel‐based parameters for optimization. We introduce three different Pareto surfaces, prove the relationship between those surfaces, and compare voxel‐based and organ‐based methods. We prove some new theorems providing conditions under which the Pareto optimality is guaranteed. Results: The new mathematical framework has shown that: 1) Using an increasing voxel penalty function with an increasing derivative, in particular the popular power function, it is possible to explore the entire Pareto surface by changing voxel‐based weighting factors, which increases the chances of getting more desirable plan. 2) The Pareto optimality is always guaranteed by adjusting voxel‐based weighting factors. 3) If the plan is initially produced by adjusting organ‐based weighting factors, it is impossible to improve all the DVH curves at the same time by adjusting voxel‐based weighting factors. 4) A larger Pareto surface is explored by changing voxel‐based weighting factors than by changing organ‐based weighting factors, possibly leading to a plan with better trade‐offs. 5) The Pareto optimality is not necessarily guaranteed while we are adjusting the voxel reference doses, and hence, adjusting voxel‐based weighting factors is preferred in terms of preserving the Pareto optimality. Conclusions: We have developed a mathematical framework for IMRT optimization using voxel‐based parameters. We can improve the plan quality by adjusting voxel‐based weighting factors after organ‐based parameter adjustment. This work is supported by Varian Medical Systems through a Master Research Agreement.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84874898820&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84874898820&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.4735997

DO - 10.1118/1.4735997

M3 - Article

C2 - 28518668

AN - SCOPUS:84874898820

VL - 39

SP - 3919

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -