000125472 001__ 125472
000125472 005__ 20240228143309.0
000125472 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1118/1.4940350
000125472 0247_ $$2pmid$$apmid:26936695
000125472 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a0094-2405
000125472 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a1522-8541
000125472 0247_ $$2altmetric$$aaltmetric:5091894
000125472 037__ $$aDKFZ-2017-01598
000125472 041__ $$aeng
000125472 082__ $$a610
000125472 1001_ $$0P:(DE-He78)fec480a99b1869ec73688e95c2f0a43b$$aBangert, Mark$$b0$$eFirst author$$udkfz
000125472 245__ $$aAccelerated iterative beam angle selection in IMRT.
000125472 260__ $$aNew York, NY$$c2016
000125472 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000125472 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000125472 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article$$bjournal$$mjournal$$s1524735482_25151
000125472 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000125472 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000125472 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000125472 520__ $$aIterative methods for beam angle selection (BAS) for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning sequentially construct a beneficial ensemble of beam directions. In a naïve implementation, the nth beam is selected by adding beam orientations one-by-one from a discrete set of candidates to an existing ensemble of (n - 1) beams. The best beam orientation is identified in a time consuming process by solving the fluence map optimization (FMO) problem for every candidate beam and selecting the beam that yields the largest improvement to the objective function value. This paper evaluates two alternative methods to accelerate iterative BAS based on surrogates for the FMO objective function value.We suggest to select candidate beams not based on the FMO objective function value after convergence but (1) based on the objective function value after five FMO iterations of a gradient based algorithm and (2) based on a projected gradient of the FMO problem in the first iteration. The performance of the objective function surrogates is evaluated based on the resulting objective function values and dose statistics in a treatment planning study comprising three intracranial, three pancreas, and three prostate cases. Furthermore, iterative BAS is evaluated for an application in which a small number of noncoplanar beams complement a set of coplanar beam orientations. This scenario is of practical interest as noncoplanar setups may require additional attention of the treatment personnel for every couch rotation.Iterative BAS relying on objective function surrogates yields similar results compared to naïve BAS with regard to the objective function values and dose statistics. At the same time, early stopping of the FMO and using the projected gradient during the first iteration enable reductions in computation time by approximately one to two orders of magnitude. With regard to the clinical delivery of noncoplanar IMRT treatments, we could show that optimized beam ensembles using only a few noncoplanar beam orientations often approach the plan quality of fully noncoplanar ensembles.We conclude that iterative BAS in combination with objective function surrogates can be a viable option to implement automated BAS at clinically acceptable computation times.
000125472 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-315$$a315 - Imaging and radiooncology (POF3-315)$$cPOF3-315$$fPOF III$$x0
000125472 588__ $$aDataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed,
000125472 7001_ $$aUnkelbach, Jan$$b1
000125472 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)1466421-5$$a10.1118/1.4940350$$gVol. 43, no. 3, p. 1073 - 1082$$n3$$p1073 - 1082$$tMedical physics$$v43$$x0094-2405$$y2016
000125472 909CO $$ooai:inrepo02.dkfz.de:125472$$pVDB
000125472 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-He78)fec480a99b1869ec73688e95c2f0a43b$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b0$$kDKFZ
000125472 9131_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-315$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF3-310$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF3-300$$3G:(DE-HGF)POF3$$4G:(DE-HGF)POF$$aDE-HGF$$bGesundheit$$lKrebsforschung$$vImaging and radiooncology$$x0
000125472 9141_ $$y2016
000125472 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0100$$2StatID$$aJCR$$bMED PHYS : 2015
000125472 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0200$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bSCOPUS
000125472 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0300$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bMedline
000125472 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0600$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bEbsco Academic Search
000125472 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0030$$2StatID$$aPeer Review$$bASC
000125472 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0199$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bThomson Reuters Master Journal List
000125472 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0110$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index
000125472 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0150$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bWeb of Science Core Collection
000125472 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0111$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index Expanded
000125472 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1110$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bCurrent Contents - Clinical Medicine
000125472 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1030$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bCurrent Contents - Life Sciences
000125472 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)9900$$2StatID$$aIF < 5
000125472 9201_ $$0I:(DE-He78)E040-20160331$$kE040$$lMedizinische Physik in der Strahlentherapie$$x0
000125472 980__ $$ajournal
000125472 980__ $$aVDB
000125472 980__ $$aI:(DE-He78)E040-20160331
000125472 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED