Username   Password       Forgot your password?  Forgot your username? 


An Improved Convex Programming Model for the Inverse Problem in Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy

Volume 14, Number 5, May 2018, pp. 871-884
DOI: 10.23940/ijpe.18.05.p5.871884

Yihua Lana,b, Xingang Zhanga,b, Jianyang Zhanga,b, Yang Wangc, and Chih-Cheng Hungd

aSchool of Computer and Information Technology, Nanyang Normal University, Nanyang, 473061, China
bInstitute of Image Processing and Pattern Recognition, Nanyang Normal University, Nanyang, 473061, China
cRadiology Department, Central Hospital of Nanyang, Nanyang, 473061, China
dLaboratory for Machine Vision and Security Research, College of Computing and Software Engineering, Kennesaw State University - Marietta Campus, 1100 South Marietta Parkway, Marietta, Georgia, 30067-2896, USA

(Submitted on February 14, 2018; Revised on March 21, 2018; Accepted on April 17, 2018)


Intensity modulated radiation therapy technology (IMRT) is one of the main approaches in cancer treatment because it can guarantee the killing of cancer cells while optimally protecting normal tissue from complications. Inverse planning, which is the core component of the entire IMRT system, is mainly based on accurate mathematical modeling and associated fast solving methods. In inverse planning, the fluence map optimization, which considers the multi-leaf collimator (MLC) modulation, is the current research focus. Although the hitting constrain problem with the unidirectional movement of leaf-sweeping has been solved, our goal is to solve the hitting constrain problem with the bidirectional movement of leaf-sweeping. In this study, we propose a non-synchronized type to solve the hitting constrain problem with the bidirectional movement of leaf-sweeping schemes for IMRT. In solving this problem, a new mathematical model is proposed under the framework of convex programming. The advantage of the convex model is to avoid the uncertainty and inaccuracy that occurs in the non-convex programming solving process. Experimental results for two clinical testing cases show that under the same condition of total number of monitoring units, the new proposed model produces better dose distribution than those of the total variance and quadratic models.


References: 17

      1.        M. Alber, “Intensity modulated photon beams subject to a minimal surface smoothing constraint,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol.45, no.5, pp. N49-N52, 2000

      2.        G. Amit, T. G. Purdie, A. Levinshtein, et al., “Automatic learning-based beam angle selection for thoracic IMRT,” Medical Physics, vol.42, no.4, pp.1992 -2005, 2015

      3.        J. Dias, H. Rocha, B. Ferreira, et al., “A genetic algorithm with neural network fitness function evaluation for IMRT beam angle optimization,” Central European Journal of Operations Research, vol.22, no.3, pp.431-455, 2014

      4.        K. Engel, “A new algorithm for optimal multileaf collimator field segmentation,” Discrete Applied Mathematics, vol.152, no.1-3, pp.35-51, 2005

      5.        C. Holdsworth, M. Kim, J. Liao, et al., “The use of a multiobjective evolutionary algorithm to increase flexibility in the search for better IMRT plans,” Medical Physics, vol.39, no.4, pp.2261-2274, 2012

      6.        T. Kalinowski, “Realization of intensity modulated radiation fields using multileaf collimators,” Electronic Notes in Discrete Mathematics, vol.21, pp.319-320, 2006

      7.        T. Kalinowski, “The complexity of minimizing the number of shape matrices subject to minimal beam-on time in multileaf collimator field decomposition with bounded fluence,” Discrete Applied Mathematics, vol.157, no.9, pp.2089-2104, 2009

      8.        G. J. Lim, W. Cao, “A two-phase method for selecting IMRT treatment beam angles: Branch-and-Prune and local neighborhood search,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol.217, no.3, pp.609-618, 2012

      9.        M.M. Matuszak, E.W. Larsen, and B.A.  Fraass, “Reduction of IMRT beam complexity through the use of beam modulation penalties in the objective function,” Medical Physics, vol.34, no.2, pp.507-520, 2007

      10.     M.M. Matuszak, E.W. Larsen, K.W. Jee, et al., “Adaptive diffusion smoothing: A diffusion-based method to reduce IMRT field complexity,” Medical Physics, vol.35, no.4, pp.1532-1546, 2008

      11.     P. Suss, K. H. Kufer, and C. Thieke, “Improved stratification algorithms for step-and-shoot MLC delivery in intensity-modulated radiation therapy,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol.52, no.19, pp. 6039-6052, 2007

      12.     S. Webb, “Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT): a clinical reality for cancer treatment," any fool can understand this": The 2004 Silvanus Thompson Memorial Lecture,” British Journal of Radiology, Special Issue 2, pp. S64-S72, 2005

      13.     D. Zhou, H. Zhang, P. Ye, “Lateral penumbra modelling based leaf end shape optimization for multileaf collimator in radiotherapy,” Computational and mathematical methods in medicine, 9515794, 2016

      14.     L. Zhu, L. Lee, Y. Ma, et al., “Using total-variation regularization for intensity modulated radiation therapy inverse planning with field-specific numbers of segments,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol.53, no.23, pp. 6653-6672, 2008

      15.     L. Zhu, and L. Xing, “Search for IMRT inverse plans with piecewise constant fluence maps using compressed sensing techniques,” Medical Physics, vol.36, no.5, pp.1895-1905, 2009

      16.     T. Zhuang, “On the effect of intrafraction motion in a single fraction step‐shoot IMRT,” Medical Physics, vol. 42, no.7, pp.4310 -4319,2015

      17.     P. Ziegenhein, C. P. Kamerling, M. Bangert, et al., “Performance-optimized clinical IMRT planning on modern CPUs,” Physics in Medicine & Biology, vol.58, no.11, pp. 3705-3715, 2013


        Please note : You will need Adobe Acrobat viewer to view the full articles.Get Free Adobe Reader

        Yihua Lana,b, Xingang Zhanga,b, Jianyang Zhang a,b, Yang Wangc, and Chih-Cheng Hungd
        This site uses encryption for transmitting your passwords.