Comparative analysis of Pareto surfaces in multi-criteria IMRT planning

• Verfasst von: Teichert, Katrin [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Süss, P. [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Serna, J. I. [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Monz, M. [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Küfer, K. H. [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Thieke, Christian [VerfasserIn]
• Titel: Comparative analysis of Pareto surfaces in multi-criteria IMRT planning
• Verf.angabe: K Teichert, P Süss, JI Serna, M Monz, KH Küfer and C Thieke
• E-Jahr: 2011
• Jahr: 25 May 2011
• Umfang: 16 S.
• Fussnoten: Gesehen am 26.10.2022
• Titel Quelle: Enthalten in: Physics in medicine and biology
• Ort Quelle: Bristol : IOP Publ., 1956
• Jahr Quelle: 2011
• Band/Heft Quelle: 56(2011), 12, Seite 3669-3684
• ISSN Quelle: 1361-6560
• DOI: doi:10.1088/0031-9155/56/12/014
• Datenträger: Online-Ressource
• Sprache: eng
• K10plus-PPN: 1820073882

Abstract

In the multi-criteria optimization approach to IMRT planning, a given dose distribution is evaluated by a number of convex objective functions that measure tumor coverage and sparing of the different organs at risk. Within this context optimizing the intensity profiles for any fixed set of beams yields a convex Pareto set in the objective space. However, if the number of beam directions and irradiation angles are included as free parameters in the formulation of the optimization problem, the resulting Pareto set becomes more intricate. In this work, a method is presented that allows for the comparison of two convex Pareto sets emerging from two distinct beam configuration choices. For the two competing beam settings, the non-dominated and the dominated points of the corresponding Pareto sets are identified and the distance between the two sets in the objective space is calculated and subsequently plotted. The obtained information enables the planner to decide if, for a given compromise, the current beam setup is optimal. He may then re-adjust his choice accordingly during navigation. The method is applied to an artificial case and two clinical head neck cases. In all cases no configuration is dominating its competitor over the whole Pareto set. For example, in one of the head neck cases a seven-beam configuration turns out to be superior to a nine-beam configuration if the highest priority is the sparing of the spinal cord. The presented method of comparing Pareto sets is not restricted to comparing different beam angle configurations, but will allow for more comprehensive comparisons of competing treatment techniques (e.g. photons versus protons) than with the classical method of comparing single treatment plans.