% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Bangert:125472,
author = {M. Bangert$^*$ and J. Unkelbach},
title = {{A}ccelerated iterative beam angle selection in {IMRT}.},
journal = {Medical physics},
volume = {43},
number = {3},
issn = {0094-2405},
address = {New York, NY},
reportid = {DKFZ-2017-01598},
pages = {1073 - 1082},
year = {2016},
abstract = {Iterative 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.},
cin = {E040},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)E040-20160331},
pnm = {315 - Imaging and radiooncology (POF3-315)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-315},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:26936695},
doi = {10.1118/1.4940350},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/125472},
}