% 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{Mescher:128101,
author = {H. Mescher$^*$ and S. Ulrich$^*$ and M. Bangert$^*$},
title = {{C}overage-based constraints for {IMRT} optimization.},
journal = {Physics in medicine and biology},
volume = {62},
number = {18},
issn = {1361-6560},
address = {Bristol},
publisher = {IOP Publ.},
reportid = {DKFZ-2017-04123},
pages = {N460 - N473},
year = {2017},
abstract = {Radiation therapy treatment planning requires an
incorporation of uncertainties in order to guarantee an
adequate irradiation of the tumor volumes. In current
clinical practice, uncertainties are accounted for
implicitly with an expansion of the target volume according
to generic margin recipes. Alternatively, it is possible to
account for uncertainties by explicit minimization of
objectives that describe worst-case treatment scenarios, the
expectation value of the treatment or the coverage
probability of the target volumes during treatment planning.
In this note we show that approaches relying on objectives
to induce a specific coverage of the clinical target volumes
are inevitably sensitive to variation of the relative
weighting of the objectives. To address this issue, we
introduce coverage-based constraints for intensity-modulated
radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment planning. Our
implementation follows the concept of coverage-optimized
planning that considers explicit error scenarios to
calculate and optimize patient-specific probabilities
[Formula: see text] of covering a specific target volume
fraction [Formula: see text] with a certain dose [Formula:
see text]. Using a constraint-based reformulation of
coverage-based objectives we eliminate the trade-off between
coverage and competing objectives during treatment planning.
In-depth convergence tests including 324 treatment plan
optimizations demonstrate the reliability of coverage-based
constraints for varying levels of probability, dose and
volume. General clinical applicability of coverage-based
constraints is demonstrated for two cases. A sensitivity
analysis regarding penalty variations within this planing
study based on IMRT treatment planning using (1)
coverage-based constraints, (2) coverage-based objectives,
(3) probabilistic optimization, (4) robust optimization and
(5) conventional margins illustrates the potential benefit
of coverage-based constraints that do not require tedious
adjustment of target volume objectives.},
cin = {E040},
ddc = {570},
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:28741600},
doi = {10.1088/1361-6560/aa8132},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/128101},
}