When is Better Best? A multiobjective perspective

Purpose: To identify the most informative methods for reporting results of treatment planning comparisons. Methods: Seven papers from the past year of International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics reported on comparisons of treatment plans for IMRT and IMAT. The papers were reviewed to identify methods of comparisons. Decision theoretical concepts were used to evaluate the study methods and highlight those that provide the most information. Results: None of the studies examined the correlation between objectives. Statistical comparisons provided some information but not enough to make provide support for a robust decision analysis. Conclusion: The increased use of treatment planning studies to evaluate different methods in radiation therapy requires improved standards for designing the studies and reporting the results

Beam Orientation Optimization for Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy using Adaptive l1 Minimization

Beam orientation optimization (BOO) is a key component in the process of IMRT treatment planning. It determines to what degree one can achieve a good treatment plan quality in the subsequent plan optimization process. In this paper, we have developed a BOO algorithm via adaptive l_1 minimization. Specifically, we introduce a sparsity energy function term into our model which contains weighting factors for each beam angle adaptively adjusted during the optimization process. Such an energy term favors small number of beam angles. By optimizing a total energy function containing a dosimetric term and the sparsity term, we are able to identify the unimportant beam angles and gradually remove them without largely sacrificing the dosimetric objective. In one typical prostate case, the convergence property of our algorithm, as well as the how the beam angles are selected during the optimization process, is demonstrated. Fluence map optimization (FMO) is then performed based on the optimized beam angles. The resulted plan quality is presented and found to be better than that obtained from unoptimized (equiangular) beam orientations. We have further systematically validated our algorithm in the contexts of 5-9 coplanar beams for 5 prostate cases and 1 head and neck case. For each case, the final FMO objective function value is used to compare the optimized beam orientations and the equiangular ones. It is found that, our BOO algorithm can lead to beam configurations which attain lower FMO objective function values than corresponding equiangular cases, indicating the effectiveness of our BOO algorithm.Comment: 19 pages, 2 tables, and 5 figure