The optimisation of wedge filters in radiotherapy of the prostate

Dose gradient based algorithm for beam weights selection in 3D-CRT plans

AIM

In this work we test the usage of dose gradient based algorithm for the selection of beam weights in 3D-CRT plans for different cancer locations. Our algorithm is easy to implement for three fields technique with wedges defined by planner.

BACKGROUND

3D-CRT is usually realized with forward planning which is quite time consuming. Several authors published a few methods of beams weights optimization applicable to the 3D-CRT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Optimization is based on an assumption that the best plan is achieved if dose gradient at ICRU point is equal to zero. Method was tested for 120 patients, treated in our clinic in 2011-2012, with different cancer locations. For each patient, three fields conformal plan (6 MV and 15 MV X-ray) with the same geometry as proposed by experienced planners was prepared. We compared dose distributions achieved with the proposed method and those prepared by experienced planners. The homogeneity of dose distributions was compared in terms of STD and near minimum and near maximum doses in the PTV.

RESULTS

Mean difference of STD obtained by the proposed algorithm and by planners was 0.1%: 0.1% for prostate cancer, 0.3% for lung cancer, -0.1% for esophagus cancer, 0.1% for rectum cancer, -0.1% for gynecology cancer, -0.1% for stomach cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Applying the proposed algorithm leads to obtain the similar dose distribution homogeneity in the PTV as these achieved by planners and therefore can serve as a support in creating 3D-CRT plans. It is also simple to use and can significantly speed up the treatment planning process.

Elimination of importance factors for clinically accurate selection of beam orientations, beam weights and wedge angles in conformal radiation therapy

A method of simultaneously optimizing beam orientations, beam weights, and wedge angles for conformal radiotherapy is presented. This method removes the need for importance factors by optimizing one objective only, subject to a set of rigid constraints. This facilitates the production of inverse solutions which, without trial-and-error modification of importance factors, precisely satisfy the specified constraints. The algorithm minimizes an objective function which is based upon the single objective to be optimized, but which is forced to an artificially high value when the constraints are not met, so that only satisfactory solutions are allowed. Due to the complex nature of the objective function space, including multiple local minima separated by large regions of plateau, a random search technique equivalent to fast simulated annealing is used for producing inverse plans. To illustrate the novel features of the new algorithm, a simulation is first presented, for the case of a cylindrical phantom. The morphology of the objective function space is shown to be significantly different for the new algorithm, compared to that for a conventional quadratic objective function. Clinical cases for prostate and craniopharyngioma are then presented. For the prostate case, the objective is to reduce irradiated rectal volume. Three-field, four-field, and six-field optimizations, with or without orientation optimization, are shown to provide solutions which are consistent with previously reported plans and class solutions. For the craniopharyngioma case, which involves the use of a high-precision stereotactic conformal technique, the objective is to reduce the irradiated volume of normal brain. Practically feasible beam angles are produced which, compared to a standard plan, provide a small but worthwhile sparing of normal brain. The algorithm is thereby shown to be robust and suitable for clinical application.

Class solutions for conformal external beam prostate radiotherapy

PURPOSE

To determine a class solution coplanar plan from comparisons of three-field (3F), four-field (4F), and six-field (6F) plans in conformal non-intensity-modulated prostate radiotherapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Doses to two clinical target volumes, prostate only (PO) and prostate plus seminal vesicles (PSV) were evaluated in each of 10 patients using a variety of 3F, 4F, and 6F plans with a planning target volume margin of 10 mm. All plans were prescribed to 64 and 74 Gy. The class solution plan for each of 3F, 4F, and 6F was chosen from a variety of symmetrical and asymmetrical field arrangements that had been previously assessed. The class solution plans, 3F (0, 90, 270 degrees ), 4F (35, 90, 270, 325 degrees ), and 6F (50/lat/25) were compared with reference plans: 3F (0, 120, 240 degrees ), 4F (0, 90, 180, 270 degrees ), and 6F (55, 90, 125, 235, 270, 305 degrees ). Rectal volumes irradiated to greater than 50% (V(50)), 80% (V(80)), and 90% (V(90)) of the prescribed dose, normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) for rectum, bladder, and femoral heads (FH), and tumor control probabilities (TCP) were assessed. FH tolerance was set at 52 Gy to 10% volume.

RESULTS

The field arrangement that gave the lowest irradiated rectal volume with acceptable bladder and FH doses was a 3F (0, 90, 270 degrees ) class solution plan. This plan gave a reduction in rectal V(80) of 1.2-12.4% for the PO group and 2.3-23.8% for the PSV group compared with the other plans. The reduction in rectal V(90) was 0.2-11.9% for the PO group and 1.5-23.3% for the PSV group using the 3F (0, 90, 270 degrees ) plan. This plan provided one of the lowest rectal NTCPs, but the difference was not significant when compared with the 4F class solution plan. When target volumes with 10-mm margins remain unchanged to 74 Gy, the irradiated rectal volumes for all plans were higher and rectal NTCPs can be trebled.

CONCLUSION

The use of appropriate beam arrangements can provide a class solution plan using only 3 fields compared with 4 or 6 fields for the parameters considered. Both 3F (0, 90, 270 degrees ) and 4F (35, 90, 270, 325 degrees ) plans can be used as a class solution plan. Other practical issues that may influence the choice of class solution include delivery time with smaller number of fields, ease of verification, the use of 10-mm multileaf collimation vs. conformal blocks, and field shape fitting limitations when using dynamic wedges.

Speed versus accuracy in a fast convolution photon dose calculation for conformal radiotherapy

A convolution dose calculation for megavoltage photon beams is described and the compromise between speed and accuracy examined. The algorithm is suitable for treatment planning optimization, where the need is for a fast, flexible method requiring minimal beam data but providing an accurate result. The algorithm uses a simple tabular beam model, together with a discrete scatter kernel. These beam parameters are fitted either to a measured dose distribution, or to a dose distribution calculated using a more accurate dose calculation algorithm. The calculation is then applied to pelvic and thoracic conformal plans, and the results compared with those provided by a commercial radiotherapy treatment planning system (Pinnacle3, Philips Radiation Oncology Systems, Milpitas, CA), which has been verified against measurements. The calculation takes around 4 s to compute a 100 x 100 mm field, and agreement of the dose-volume histograms with the commercial treatment planning system is to within 5% dose or 8% volume. Use of a grid resolution coarser than 5 x 5 x 5 mm is found to be inaccurate, whereas calculating primary dose on a coarse grid and interpolating is found to increase speed without significantly reducing accuracy. Kernel resolution influences the speed and accuracy, but using 12 discrete points provides a fast result with a limited error. Thus, the algorithm is suitable for optimization applications.

Comparison of two algorithms for determining beam weights and wedge filters

This article compares two algorithms for determining beam weights and wedge filters for conformal treatment planning. One algorithm, which is based on dose-gradient analysis, provides analytic formulas for determining beam weights, wedge angles, and collimator angles (i.e., wedge orientations) so that the dose distribution is homogeneous in the target volume. The second algorithm is based on the concept of the super-omni wedge (i.e., the arrangement of two pairs of orthogonal nominal wedged beams), numerically optimize beam weights, wedge angles, and collimator angles so that the dose requirements to targets and organs at risk are satisfied to the best. Three clinical cases were tested. For the first case, both algorithms resulted in comparable homogeneous dose distributions in the target volume. For the second case, the second algorithm resulted in much lower doses to the eyes plus a better homogeneous dose distribution in the target volume. For the third case, only the second algorithm was applicable, and the treatment plan it developed met the prescribed requirements. The results show that the first algorithm is better in terms of feasibility, whereas the second is better in terms of applicability and the quality of treatment plans.

An evaluation of three-field coplanar plans for conformal radiotherapy of prostate cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

A series of coplanar three-field configurations for two different clinical treatment volumes, prostate only (PO) and prostate plus seminal vesicles (PSV) were studied to determine the optimal three-field plan arrangement for prostate radiotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A variety of conformal three-field 6 MV plans prescribed to both 64 and 74 Gy were created for PO and PSV volumes in each of ten patients. For description, the orientation of each sequential beam was named in a clockwise fashion. Plans included series with arrangements of 0 degrees, 60-150 degrees, 210-300 degrees; 0 degrees, 90 degrees, 225-255 degrees; 90 degrees, 210-240 degrees, 300-330 degrees and a four-field (4F) box plan for comparison. Six-hundred and eighty plans were compared using the rectal volume irradiated to greater than 50% (V(50)), 80% (V(80)), and 90% (V(90)) of the prescribed dose, normal tissue complications (NTCP) for rectum, bladder, and femoral heads (FH), and tumour control probabilities (TCP). FH tolerance was set at 52 Gy to 10% volume.

RESULTS

In comparing the 34 different three-field configurations for each of the PO and PSV groups, the greatest rectal sparing was achieved by a three-field plan with gantry angles of 0 degrees, 90 degrees, 270 degrees (PO: rectal V(80)=22.8+/-5.5% (1S.D.), V(90)=18.4+/-5.7%, and PSV: rectal V(80)=41.9+/-5.8%, V(90)=35.5+/-5.9%). This also improved on the 4F-box plan (PO: rectal V(80)=26.0+/-5.8%, V(90)=21.4+/-5.2%, P<0.001; and PSV: rectal V(80)=47.3+/-5.5%, V(90)=41.6+/-5.1%, P<0.001). The worst rectal sparing was seen with the 0 degrees, 120 degrees, 240 degrees plan (PO: rectal V(80)=35.2+/-8.0%, V(90)=30.3+/-7.1%, P<0.001; and PSV: rectal V(80)=65.7+/-9.0%, V(90)=58.8+/-8.8%, P<0.001). In the PO group, the increase in predicted rectal NTCP with dose escalation from 64 to 74 Gy was 3.3% using the 0 degrees, 90 degrees, 270 degrees plan, 4.7% with the 4F-box plan, and 6.9% with the 0 degrees, 120 degrees, 240 degrees plan. In the PSV group, dose escalation increased the predicted rectal NTCP by 7.9, 10.1 and 15.7% for the 0 degrees, 90 degrees, 270 degrees plan, 4F-box plan, and 0 degrees, 120 degrees, 240 degrees plan, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

For both PO and PSV volumes, the three-field plan which afforded the greatest rectal sparing with acceptable bladder and femoral head doses was the 0 degrees, 90 degrees, 270 degrees plan. This plan also improved on the 4F-box. The increase in predicted rectal NTCP when escalating dose from 64 to 74 Gy was smaller using this plan compared to either the three-field 0 degrees, 120 degrees, 240 degrees plan or the 4F-box plan.

Optimization of coplanar six-field techniques for conformal radiotherapy of the prostate

PURPOSE

To determine the optimal coplanar treatment technique for six-field conformal radiotherapy of prostate only (PO) or prostate plus seminal vesicles (PSV).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A series of 6-MV six-field coplanar treatment plans were created for PO and PSV volumes in 10 patients prescribed to both 64 and 74 Gy. All plans consisted of laterally-symmetric anterior oblique, lateral, and posterior oblique fields. The posterior oblique fields were varied through 20-45 degrees relative to the lateral fields, and for each of these angles, the anterior oblique fields were varied through 25-65 degrees relative to lateral. The plans were compared by means of rectal volumes irradiated to 80% or more of the prescribed dose (V80); normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for rectum, bladder, and femoral heads; and tumor control probability (TCP). Femoral head tolerance was designated as 52 Gy to no more than 10% volume.

RESULTS

For the PO group, anterior oblique fields at 50 degrees from lateral and posterior oblique fields at 25 degrees from lateral produced the lowest V80, together with femoral head doses which were appropriate for most patients (V80 = 24.4+/-5.3% [1 SD]). Compared to a commonly-used six-field (reference) plan with both anterior and posterior oblique fields at 35 degrees from lateral (V80 = 26.3+/-5.9%), this represented an improvement (p = 0.001). For the PSV group, the optimal anterior and posterior oblique fields were at 65 degrees and 30 degrees from lateral, respectively (V80 = 47.5+/-6.3%). Relative to the reference plan (V80 = 49.4+/-5.6%), this was a marginal improvement (p = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

The optimized six-field plans provide increased rectal sparing at both standard and escalated doses. Moreover, the gain in TCP resulting from dose escalation can be achieved with a smaller increase in rectal NTCP using the optimized six-field plans.

Clinical implementation of wedge filter optimization in three-dimensional radiotherapy treatment planning

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To describe a wedge filter optimization technique which automatically chooses the beam weights and wedge filters and to demonstrate the implementation of the algorithm in clinical three-dimensional (3D) radiotherapy treatment planning.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Given the incident directions and beam energies of J beams, the dose distribution is a function of the beam weights, wedge angles, and wedge orientations. Instead of decomposing an incident field into a superposition of an open and two nominal wedged fields and then optimizing their weights, the algorithm optimizes the objective function with respect to the beam weights, wedge angles and wedge orientations directly. A salient feature of the algorithm is that no planner intervention was required in the selection of wedge filters during the optimization process. A dose-based objective function which incorporated the relative importance of structures was adopted in this work. The objective function was minimized by the method of simulated annealing. The technique was demonstrated by using a phantom study and two clinical cases.

RESULTS

For the phantom case, the classical wedge pair result was obtained, providing a useful test of the algorithm. Dose distributions and dose volume histograms for the target and surrounding organs were presented for the two clinical cases. It was also shown that dose homogeneity to the target could be compromised by increasing the relative importance factors to the surrounding organs.

CONCLUSIONS

A 3D wedge filter optimization algorithm has been developed. The technique has the potential to fully automate the 3D radiotherapy treatment planning process. In addition, treatment planning time and efforts were significantly reduced.

Beam-orientation customization using an artificial neural network

A methodology for the constrained customization of coplanar beam orientations in radiotherapy treatment planning using an artificial neural network (ANN) has been developed. The geometry of the patients, with cancer of the prostate, was modelled by reducing the external contour, planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) to a set of cuboids. The coordinates and size of the cuboids were given to the ANN as inputs. A previously developed beam-orientation constrained-customization (BOCC) scheme employing a conventional computer algorithm was used to determine the customized beam orientations in a training set containing 45 patient datasets. Twelve patient datasets not involved in the training of the artificial neural network were used to test whether the ANN was able to map the inputs to customized beam orientations. Improvements from the customized beam orientations were compared with standard treatment plans with fixed gantry angles and plans produced from the BOCC scheme. The ANN produced customized beam orientations within 5 degrees of the BOCC scheme in 62.5% of cases. The average difference in the beam orientations produced by the ANN and the BOCC scheme was 7.7 degrees (+/-1.7, 1 SD). Compared with the standard treatment plans, the BOCC scheme produced plans with an increase in the average tumour control probability (TCP) of 5.7% (+/-1.4, 1 SD) whilst the ANN generated plans increased the average TCP by 3.9% (+/-1.3, 1 SD). Both figures refer to the TCP at a fixed rectal normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of 1%. In conclusion, even using a very simple model for the geometry of the patient, an ANN was able to produce beam orientations that were similar to those produced by a conventional computer algorithm.

A comparison of coplanar four-field techniques for conformal radiotherapy of the prostate

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Conformal radiotherapy of the prostate is an increasingly common technique, but the optimal choice of beam configuration remains unclear. This study systematically compares a number of coplanar treatment plans for four-field irradiation of two different clinical treatment volumes: prostate only (PO) and the prostate plus seminal vesicles (PSV).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A variety of four-field coplanar treatment plans were created for PO and PSV volumes in each of ten patients. Plans included a four-field 'box' plan, a symmetric plan having bilateral anterior and posterior oblique fields, a plan with anterior oblique and lateral fields, a series of asymmetric plans, and a three-field plan having anterior and bilateral fields for comparison. Doses of 64 and 74 Gy were prescribed to the isocentre. Plans were compared using the volume of rectum irradiated to greater than 50% (V50), 80% (V80) and 90% (V90) of the prescribed dose. Tumour control probabilities (TCP) and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) for the rectum, bladder and femoral heads were also evaluated. Femoral head dose was limited such that less than 10% of each femoral head received 70% of the prescribed dose.

RESULTS

For the PO group, the optimal plan consisted of anterior oblique and lateral fields (Rectal V80 = 23.8+/-5.0% (1 SD)), while the box technique (V80 = 26.0+/-5.8%) was less advantageous in terms of rectal sparing (P = 0.001). Similar results were obtained for the PSV group (Rectal V80 = 43.9+/-5.0% and 47.3+/-5.5% for the two plan types, respectively, P = 0.001). The three-field plan was comparable to the optimal four-field plan but gave higher superficial body dose. With dose escalation from 64 to 74 Gy, the mean TCP for the optimal plan rose from 52.0+/-2.8% to 74.1+/-2.0%. Meanwhile, rectal NTCP for the optimal plan rose by 3.5% (PO) or 8.4% (PSV), compared to 4.7% (PO) or 10.1% (PSV) for the box plan.

CONCLUSIONS

For PO volumes, a plan with gantry angles of 35 degrees, 90 degrees, 270 degrees and 325 degrees offers a high level of rectal sparing and acceptable dose to the femoral heads for all patients, while for PSV volumes, the corresponding plan has gantry angles of 20 degrees, 90 degrees , 270 degrees and 340 degrees. Using these plans, the gain in TCP resulting from dose escalation can be achieved with a smaller increase in anticipated rectal NTCP.

Constrained customization of non-coplanar beam orientations in radiotherapy of brain tumours

A methodology for the constrained customization of non-coplanar beam orientations in radiotherapy treatment planning has been developed and tested on a cohort of five patients with tumours of the brain. The methodology employed a combination of single and multibeam cost functions to produce customized beam orientations. The single-beam cost function was used to reduce the search space for the multibeam cost function, which was minimized using a fast simulated annealing algorithm. The scheme aims to produce well-spaced, customized beam orientations for each patient that produce low dose to organs at risk (OARs). The customized plans were compared with standard plans containing the number and orientation of beams chosen by a human planner. The beam orientation constraint-customized plans employed the same number of treatment beams as the standard plan but with beam orientations chosen by the constrained-customization scheme. Improvements from beam orientation constraint-customization were studied in isolation by customizing the beam weights of both plans using a dose-based downhill simplex algorithm. The results show that beam orientation constraint-customization reduced the maximum dose to the orbits by an average of 18.8 (+/-3.8, ISD)% and to the optic nerves by 11.4 (+/-4.8, ISD)% with no degradation of the planning target volume (PTV) dose distribution. The mean doses, averaged over the patient cohort, were reduced by 4.2 (+/-1.1, ISD)% and 12.4 (+/-3.1, ISD)% for the orbits and optic nerves respectively. In conclusion, the beam orientation constraint-customization can reduce the dose to OARs, for few-beam treatment plans, when compared with standard treatment plans developed by a human planner.

A case study comparing the relative benefit of optimizing beam weights, wedge angles, beam orientations and tomotherapy in stereotactic radiotherapy of the brain

A treatment-planning case study has been performed on a patient with a medium-sized, convex brain tumour. The study involved the application of advanced treatment-plan optimization techniques to improve on the dose distribution of the 'standard plan' used to treat the patient. The standard plan was created according to conventional protocol at the Royal Marsden NHS Trust, and consisted of a three-field (one open and two wedged) non-coplanar arrangement, with field shaping to the beam's-eye view of the planning target volume (PTV). Three optimized treatment plans were created corresponding to (i) the optimization of the beam weights and wedge angles of the standard plan, (ii) the optimization of the beam orientations, beam weights and wedge angles of the standard plan, and (iii) a full fluence tomotherapy optimization of 1 cm wide (at isocentre), 270 degree arcs. (i) and (ii) were created on the VOXELPLAN research 3D treatment-planning system, using in-house developed optimization algorithms, and (iii) was created on the PEACOCK tomotherapy planning system. The downhill-simplex optimization algorithm is used, in conjunction with 'threshold-dose' cost-function terms enabling the algorithm to optimize specific regions of the dose-volume histogram (DVH) curve. The 'beam-cost plot' tool is presented as a visual aid to the selection of beneficial beam directions. The methods and pitfalls in the transfer of plans and patient data between the two planning systems are discussed. Each optimization approach was evaluated, relative to the standard plan, on the basis of DVH and dose statistics in the PTV and organs at risk (OARs). All three optimization approaches were able to improve on the dose distribution of the standard plan. The magnitude of the improvement was greater for the optimized beam-orientation and tomotherapy plans (up to 15% and 30% for the maximum and mean OAR doses). A smaller improvement was observed in the beam-weight and wedge-angle optimized plan (up to 5% and 10% in the maximum and mean OAR doses). In the tomotherapy plan, difficulty was encountered achieving an acceptable homogeneity of dose in the PTV. This was improved by treating the gross tumour volume (GTV) and (PTV - GTV) regions as separate targets in the inverse planning, with the latter region prescribed a slightly higher dose to reduce edge under-dosing. In conclusion, for the medium-sized convex tumour studied, the tomotherapy dose distribution showed a significant improvement on the standard plan, but no significant improvement over a conventional three-field plan where the beam orientations, beam weights and wedge angles had been optimized.

Improvements in prostate radiotherapy from the customization of beam directions

A methodology for optimizing the beam directions in radiotherapy treatment planning has been developed and tested on a cohort of twelve prostate patients. An optimization algorithm employing a an objective cost function was used, based on beam's-eye-view volumetrics but also employing a simple dose model and biological considerations for organs-at-risk (OARs). The cost function embodies information about the volume of OARs in a single field and their position relative to the planning target volume (PTV). The proximity of the PTV to the surface of the patient is also included. Within the algorithm "importance factor" were used to model the clinical importance of different organs-at-risk so that all organs-at-risk were included in a single objective score. "Gantry-angle-windows" were introduced to restrict the available beam directions. The methodology was applied to twelve prostate patients to determine the optimum beam directions for three-field direction plans. Orientation-optimized and standard treatment plans were compared via measures of tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP). Standard plans had fixed beam directions whereas orientation-optimized plans contained beam directions chosen by the algorithm. The beam-weights of both the orientation-optimized and standard plans were optimized using a dose-based simulated annealing algorithm to allow the improvements by optimizing the beam directions to be studied in isolation. The results of the comparison show that optimization of the beam directions yielded better plans, in terms of TCP and NTCP, than the standard plans. When the dose to the isocenter was scaled to produce a rectal NTCP of 1%, the average TCP of the orientation-optimized plans was (5.7 +/- 1.4)% greater than that for the standard plans. In conclusion, the customization of beam directions in the treatment planning of prostate patients using and objective cost function and allowed gantry-angle-windows produces superior three-field direction plans compared to standard treatment plans.

Methods for transferring patient and plan data between radiotherapy treatment planning systems

The effectiveness of conformal radiotherapy can ultimately only be assessed by the use of clinical trials. As large multicentre clinical trials become more widespread, methods of transferring patient and plan data between radiotherapy treatment planning systems become increasingly important. In this paper, the general strategy for the transfer of data is discussed, and also illustrated with reference to two specific systems: TARGET 2 (GE Medical Systems) and VOXELPLAN (DKFZ-Heidelberg). The transfer method involves using a computer program to translate the data formats used by each of the two systems for CT scans, patient outlines, plan information and block descriptions. This paper does not address the question of transferring beam data between systems: beam data must first be entered separately into both machines. The physical concepts encountered when transferring plans are described, with specific reference to the two planning systems used. Differences in the strategies used by the two planning systems for definition of irregular field shapes are compared. The dose calculations used by the two systems are also briefly evaluated. Isodoses produced by VOXELPLAN around a circular target volume are found to be up to 3 mm different in location to those produced by TARGET 2, owing to the use of a smooth field shape contour as opposed to a stepped field shape which closely models the leaves of a multileaf collimator. In general, dose distributions generated by both systems are comparable, but some differences are found in the presence of large tissue inhomogeneities. It is concluded that the transfer of patient and plan data between two different treatment planning systems is feasible, provided that any differences in field shape definition methods or dose calculation methods between the two systems are understood.