skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-F-T-340: Direct Editing of Dose Volume Histograms: Algorithms and a Unified Convex Formulation for Treatment Planning with Dose Constraints

Abstract

Purpose: To develop a procedure for including dose constraints in convex programming-based approaches to treatment planning, and to support dynamic modification of such constraints during planning. Methods: We present a mathematical approach that allows mean dose, maximum dose, minimum dose and dose volume (i.e., percentile) constraints to be appended to any convex formulation of an inverse planning problem. The first three constraint types are convex and readily incorporated. Dose volume constraints are not convex, however, so we introduce a convex restriction that is related to CVaR-based approaches previously proposed in the literature. To compensate for the conservatism of this restriction, we propose a new two-pass algorithm that solves the restricted problem on a first pass and uses this solution to form exact constraints on a second pass. In another variant, we introduce slack variables for each dose constraint to prevent the problem from becoming infeasible when the user specifies an incompatible set of constraints. We implement the proposed methods in Python using the convex programming package cvxpy in conjunction with the open source convex solvers SCS and ECOS. Results: We show, for several cases taken from the clinic, that our proposed method meets specified constraints (often with margin) when theymore » are feasible. Constraints are met exactly when we use the two-pass method, and infeasible constraints are replaced with the nearest feasible constraint when slacks are used. Finally, we introduce ConRad, a Python-embedded free software package for convex radiation therapy planning. ConRad implements the methods described above and offers a simple interface for specifying prescriptions and dose constraints. Conclusion: This work demonstrates the feasibility of using modifiable dose constraints in a convex formulation, making it practical to guide the treatment planning process with interactively specified dose constraints. This work was supported by the Stanford BioX Graduate Fellowship and NIH Grant 5R01CA176553.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2]; ;  [3];  [1]
  1. Stanford University, Stanford, CA (United States)
  2. (United States)
  3. Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22648943
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER CODES; LIMITING VALUES; MATHEMATICAL SOLUTIONS; PLANNING; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Ungun, B, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, Fu, A, Xing, L, and Boyd, S. SU-F-T-340: Direct Editing of Dose Volume Histograms: Algorithms and a Unified Convex Formulation for Treatment Planning with Dose Constraints. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956525.
Ungun, B, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, Fu, A, Xing, L, & Boyd, S. SU-F-T-340: Direct Editing of Dose Volume Histograms: Algorithms and a Unified Convex Formulation for Treatment Planning with Dose Constraints. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956525.
Ungun, B, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, Fu, A, Xing, L, and Boyd, S. Wed . "SU-F-T-340: Direct Editing of Dose Volume Histograms: Algorithms and a Unified Convex Formulation for Treatment Planning with Dose Constraints". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956525.
@article{osti_22648943,
title = {SU-F-T-340: Direct Editing of Dose Volume Histograms: Algorithms and a Unified Convex Formulation for Treatment Planning with Dose Constraints},
author = {Ungun, B and Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA and Fu, A and Xing, L and Boyd, S},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To develop a procedure for including dose constraints in convex programming-based approaches to treatment planning, and to support dynamic modification of such constraints during planning. Methods: We present a mathematical approach that allows mean dose, maximum dose, minimum dose and dose volume (i.e., percentile) constraints to be appended to any convex formulation of an inverse planning problem. The first three constraint types are convex and readily incorporated. Dose volume constraints are not convex, however, so we introduce a convex restriction that is related to CVaR-based approaches previously proposed in the literature. To compensate for the conservatism of this restriction, we propose a new two-pass algorithm that solves the restricted problem on a first pass and uses this solution to form exact constraints on a second pass. In another variant, we introduce slack variables for each dose constraint to prevent the problem from becoming infeasible when the user specifies an incompatible set of constraints. We implement the proposed methods in Python using the convex programming package cvxpy in conjunction with the open source convex solvers SCS and ECOS. Results: We show, for several cases taken from the clinic, that our proposed method meets specified constraints (often with margin) when they are feasible. Constraints are met exactly when we use the two-pass method, and infeasible constraints are replaced with the nearest feasible constraint when slacks are used. Finally, we introduce ConRad, a Python-embedded free software package for convex radiation therapy planning. ConRad implements the methods described above and offers a simple interface for specifying prescriptions and dose constraints. Conclusion: This work demonstrates the feasibility of using modifiable dose constraints in a convex formulation, making it practical to guide the treatment planning process with interactively specified dose constraints. This work was supported by the Stanford BioX Graduate Fellowship and NIH Grant 5R01CA176553.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956525},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}
  • Purpose: Determine equivalent Organ at Risk (OAR) tolerance dose (TD) constraints for MV x-rays and particle therapy. Methods: Equivalent TD estimates for MV x-rays are determined from an isoeffect, regression-analysis of published and in-house constraints for various fractionation schedules (n fractions). The analysis yields an estimate of (α/β) for an OAR. To determine equivalent particle therapy constraints, the MV x-ray TD(n) values are divided by the RBE for DSB induction (RBE{sub DSB}) or cell survival (RBE{sub S}). Estimates of (RBE{sub DSB}) are computed using the Monte Carlo Damage Simulation, and estimates of RBES are computed using the Repair-Misrepair-Fixation (RMF) model.more » A research build of the RayStation™ treatment planning system implementing the above model is used to estimate (RBE{sub DSB}) for OARs of interest in 16 proton therapy patient plans (head and neck, thorax, prostate and brain). Results: The analysis gives an (α/β) estimate of about 20 Gy for the trachea and heart and 2–4 Gy for the esophagus, spine, and brachial plexus. Extrapolation of MV x-ray constraints (n = 1) to fast neutrons using RBE{sub DSB} = 2.7 are in excellent agreement with clinical experience (n = 10 to 20). When conventional (n > 30) x-ray treatments are used as the reference radiation, fast neutron RBE increased to a maximum of 6. For comparison to a constant RBE of 1.1, the RayStation™ analysis gave estimates of proton RBE{sub DSB} from 1.03 to 1.33 for OARs of interest. Conclusion: The presented system of models is a convenient formalism to synthesize from multiple sources of information a set of self-consistent plan constraints for MV x-ray and hadron therapy treatments. Estimates of RBE{sub DSB} from the RayStation™ analysis differ substantially from 1.1 and vary among patients and treatment sites. A treatment planning system that incorporates patient and anatomy-specific corrections in proton RBE would create opportunities to increase the therapeutic ratio. The research build of the RayStation used in the study was made available to the University of Washington free of charge. RaySearch Laboratories did not provide any monetary support for the reported studies.« less
  • Purpose: RapidPlan uses a library consisting of expert plans from different patients to create a model that can predict achievable dose-volume histograms (DVHs) for new patients. The goal of this study is to investigate the impacts of model library population (plan numbers) on the DVH prediction for rectal cancer patients treated with volumetric-modulated radiotherapy (VMAT) Methods: Ninety clinically accepted rectal cancer patients’ VMAT plans were selected to establish 3 models, named as Model30, Model60 and Model90, with 30,60, and 90 plans in the model training. All plans had sufficient target coverage and bladder and femora sparings. Additional 10 patients weremore » enrolled to test the DVH prediction differences with these 3 models. The predicted DVHs from these 3 models were compared and analyzed. Results: Predicted V40 (Vx, percent of volume that received x Gy for the organs at risk) and Dmean (mean dose, cGy) of the bladder were 39.84±13.38 and 2029.4±141.6 for the Model30,37.52±16.00 and 2012.5±152.2 for the Model60, and 36.33±18.35 and 2066.5±174.3 for the Model90. Predicted V30 and Dmean of the left femur were 23.33±9.96 and 1443.3±114.5 for the Model30, 21.83±5.75 and 1436.6±61.9 for the Model60, and 20.31±4.6 and 1415.0±52.4 for the Model90.There were no significant differences among the 3 models for the bladder and left femur predictions. Predicted V40 and Dmean of the right femur were 19.86±10.00 and 1403.6±115.6 (Model30),18.97±6.19 and 1401.9±68.78 (Model60), and 21.08±7.82 and 1424.0±85.3 (Model90). Although a slight lower DVH prediction of the right femur was found on the Model60, the mean differences for V30 and mean dose were less than 2% and 1%, respectively. Conclusion: There were no significant differences among Model30, Model60 and Model90 for predicting DVHs on rectal patients treated with VMAT. The impact of plan numbers for model library might be limited for cancers with similar target shape.« less
  • Purpose: In this study, the comparison of dosimetric accuracy of Acuros XB and AAA algorithms were investigated for small radiation fields incident on homogeneous and heterogeneous geometries Methods: Small open fields of Truebeam 2.0 unit (1×1, 2×2, 3×3, 4×4 fields) were used for this study. The fields were incident on homogeneous phantom and in house phantom containing lung, air, and bone inhomogeneities. Using the same film batch, the net OD to dose calibration curve was obtaine dusing Trubeam 2.0 for 6 MV, 6 FFF, 10 MV, 10 FFF, 15 MV energies by delivering 0- 800 cGy. Films were scanned 48more » hours after irradiation using an Epson 1000XL flatbed scanner. The dosimetric accuracy of Acuros XB and AAA algorithms in the presence of the inhomogeneities was compared against EBT3 film dosimetry Results: Open field tests in a homogeneous phantom showed good agreement betweent wo algorithms and measurement. For Acuros XB, minimum gamma analysis passin grates between measured and calculated dose distributions were 99.3% and 98.1% for homogeneousand inhomogeneous fields in thecase of lung and bone respectively. For AAA, minimum gamma analysis passingrates were 99.1% and 96.5% for homogeneous and inhomogeneous fields respectively for all used energies and field sizes.In the case of the air heterogeneity, the differences were larger for both calculations algorithms. Over all, when compared to measurement, theAcuros XB had beter agreement than AAA. Conclusion: The Acuros XB calculation algorithm in the TPS is an improvemen tover theexisting AAA algorithm. Dose discrepancies were observed for in the presence of air inhomogeneities.« less
  • Purpose: In small field geometries, the electronic equilibrium can be lost, making it challenging for the dose-calculation algorithm to accurately predict the dose, especially in the presence of tissue heterogeneities. In this study, dosimetric accuracy of Monte Carlo (MC) advanced dose calculation and sequential algorithms of Multiplan treatment planning system were investigated for small radiation fields incident on homogeneous and heterogeneous geometries. Methods: Small open fields of fixed cones of Cyberknife M6 unit 100 to 500 mm2 were used for this study. The fields were incident on in house phantom containing lung, air, and bone inhomogeneities and also homogeneous phantom.more » Using the same film batch, the net OD to dose calibration curve was obtained using CK with the 60 mm fixed cone by delivering 0- 800 cGy. Films were scanned 48 hours after irradiation using an Epson 1000XL flatbed scanner. The dosimetric accuracy of MC and sequential algorithms in the presence of the inhomogeneities was compared against EBT3 film dosimetry Results: Open field tests in a homogeneous phantom showed good agreement between two algorithms and film measurement For MC algorithm, the minimum gamma analysis passing rates between measured and calculated dose distributions were 99.7% and 98.3% for homogeneous and inhomogeneous fields in the case of lung and bone respectively. For sequential algorithm, the minimum gamma analysis passing rates were 98.9% and 92.5% for for homogeneous and inhomogeneous fields respectively for used all cone sizes. In the case of the air heterogeneity, the differences were larger for both calculation algorithms. Overall, when compared to measurement, the MC had better agreement than sequential algorithm. Conclusion: The Monte Carlo calculation algorithm in the Multiplan treatment planning system is an improvement over the existing sequential algorithm. Dose discrepancies were observed for in the presence of air inhomogeneities.« less
  • Purpose: Advanced stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) treatments require accurate dose calculation for treatment planning especially for treatment sites involving heterogeneous patient anatomy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of dose calculation algorithms, Raytracing and Monte Carlo (MC), implemented in the MultiPlan treatment planning system (TPS) in presence of heterogeneities. Methods: First, the LINAC of a CyberKnife radiotherapy facility was modeled with the PENELOPE MC code. A protocol for the measurement of dose distributions with EBT3 films was established and validated thanks to comparison between experimental dose distributions and calculated dose distributions obtained with MultiPlan Raytracing and MCmore » algorithms as well as with the PENELOPE MC model for treatments planned with the homogenous Easycube phantom. Finally, bones and lungs inserts were used to set up a heterogeneous Easycube phantom. Treatment plans with the 10, 7.5 or the 5 mm field sizes were generated in Multiplan TPS with different tumor localizations (in the lung and at the lung/bone/soft tissue interface). Experimental dose distributions were compared to the PENELOPE MC and Multiplan calculations using the gamma index method. Results: Regarding the experiment in the homogenous phantom, 100% of the points passed for the 3%/3mm tolerance criteria. These criteria include the global error of the method (CT-scan resolution, EBT3 dosimetry, LINAC positionning …), and were used afterwards to estimate the accuracy of the MultiPlan algorithms in heterogeneous media. Comparison of the dose distributions obtained in the heterogeneous phantom is in progress. Conclusion: This work has led to the development of numerical and experimental dosimetric tools for small beam dosimetry. Raytracing and MC algorithms implemented in MultiPlan TPS were evaluated in heterogeneous media.« less