Optimal starting gantry angles using equiangular-spaced beams with intensity modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer on RTOG 0126: A clinical study of 5 and 7 fields

Characterizing the combinatorial beam angle selection problem

The beam angle selection (BAS) problem in intensity-modulated radiation therapy is often interpreted as a combinatorial optimization problem, i.e. finding the best combination of η beams in a discrete set of candidate beams. It is well established that the combinatorial BAS problem may be solved efficiently with metaheuristics such as simulated annealing or genetic algorithms. However, the underlying parameters of the optimization process, such as the inclusion of non-coplanar candidate beams, the angular resolution in the space of candidate beams, and the number of evaluated beam ensembles as well as the relative performance of different metaheuristics have not yet been systematically investigated. We study these open questions in a meta-analysis of four strategies for combinatorial optimization in order to provide a reference for future research related to the BAS problem in intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment planning. We introduce a high-performance inverse planning engine for BAS. It performs a full fluence optimization for ≈3600 treatment plans per hour while handling up to 50 GB of dose influence data (≈1400 candidate beams). For three head and neck patients, we compare the relative performance of a genetic, a cross-entropy, a simulated annealing and a naive iterative algorithm. The selection of ensembles with 5, 7, 9 and 11 beams considering either only coplanar or all feasible candidate beams is studied for an angular resolution of 5°, 10°, 15° and 20° in the space of candidate beams. The impact of different convergence criteria is investigated in comparison to a fixed termination after the evaluation of 10 000 beam ensembles. In total, our simulations comprise a full fluence optimization for about 3000 000 treatment plans. All four combinatorial BAS strategies yield significant improvements of the objective function value and of the corresponding dose distributions compared to standard beam configurations with equi-spaced coplanar beams. The genetic and the cross-entropy algorithms showed faster convergence in the very beginning of the optimization but the simulated annealing algorithm eventually arrived at almost the same objective function values. These three strategies typically yield clinically equivalent treatment plans. The iterative algorithm showed the worst convergence properties. The choice of the termination criterion had a stronger influence on the performance of the simulated annealing algorithm than on the performance of the genetic and the cross-entropy algorithms. We advocate to terminate the optimization process after the evaluation of 1000 beam combinations without objective function decrease. For our simulations, this resulted in an average deviation of the objective function from the reference value after 10 000 evaluated beam ensembles of 0.5% for all metaheuristics. On average, there was only a minor improvement when increasing the angular resolution in the space of candidate beam angles from 20° to 5°. However, we observed significant improvements when considering non-coplanar candidate beams for challenging head and neck cases.

Spherical cluster analysis for beam angle optimization in intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment planning

An intuitive heuristic to establish beam configurations for intensity-modulated radiation therapy is introduced as an extension of beam ensemble selection strategies applying scalar scoring functions. It is validated by treatment plan comparisons for three intra-cranial, pancreas, and prostate cases each. Based on a patient specific matrix listing the radiological quality of candidate beam directions individually for every target voxel, a set of locally ideal beam angles is generated. The spherical distribution of locally ideal beam angles is characteristic for every treatment site and patient: ideal beam angles typically cluster around distinct orientations. We interpret the cluster centroids, which are identified with a spherical K-means algorithm, as irradiation angles of an intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment plan. The fluence profiles are subsequently optimized during a conventional inverse planning process. The average computation time for the pre-optimization of a beam ensemble is six minutes on a state-of-the-art work station. The treatment planning study demonstrates the potential benefit of the proposed beam angle optimization strategy. For the three prostate cases under investigation, the standard treatment plans applying nine coplanar equi-spaced beams and treatment plans applying an optimized non-coplanar nine-beam ensemble yield clinically comparable dose distributions. For symmetric patient geometries, the dose distribution formed by nine equi-spaced coplanar beams cannot be improved significantly. For the three pancreas and intra-cranial cases under investigation, the optimized non-coplanar beam ensembles enable better sparing of organs at risk while guaranteeing equivalent target coverage. Beam angle optimization by spherical cluster analysis shows the biggest impact for target volumes located asymmetrically within the patient and close to organs at risk.

Class solution in inverse planned HDR prostate brachytherapy for dose escalation of DIL defined by combined MRI/MRSI

PURPOSE

To establish an inverse planning set of parameters (class solution) to boost dominant intra-prostatic lesion (DIL) defined by MRI/MRSI.

METHODS

For 15 patients, DIL were contoured on CT or MR images and a class solution was developed to boost the DIL under the dosimetric requirements of the RTOG-0321 protocol. To determine the maximum attainable level of boost for each patient, 5 different levels were considered, at least 110%, 120%, 130%, 140% and 150% of the prescribed dose. The maximum attainable level was compared to the plan without boost using cumulative dose volume histogram (DVH).

RESULTS

DIL dose escalation was feasible for 11/15 patients under the requirements. The planning target volume (PTV) dose was slightly increased, while the DIL dose was significantly increased without any violation of requirements. With slight adjustments of the dose constraint parameters, the dose escalation was feasible for 13/15 patients under requirements.

CONCLUSION

Using a class solution, a dose escalation of the MRI/MRSI defined DIL up to 150% while complying with RTOG dosimetric requirements is feasible. This HDR brachytherapy approach to dose escalation allows a significant dose increase to the tumor while maintaining an acceptable risk of complications.