Reflections on beam configuration optimization for intensity-modulated proton therapy.

Presumably, intensity-modulated proton radiotherapy (IMPT) is the most powerful form of proton radiotherapy. In the current state of the art, IMPT beam configurations (i.e. the number of beams and their directions) are, in general, chosen subjectively based on prior experience and practicality. Beam configuration optimization (BCO) for IMPT could, in theory, significantly enhance IMPT's therapeutic potential. However, BCO is complex and highly computer resource-intensive. Some algorithms for BCO have been developed for intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT). They are rarely used clinically mainly because the large number of beams typically employed in IMRT renders BCO essentially unnecessary. Moreover, in the newer form of IMRT, volumetric modulated arc therapy, there are no individual static beams. BCO is of greater importance for IMPT because it typically employs a very small number of beams (2-4) and, when the number of beams is small, BCO is critical for improving plan quality. However, the unique properties and requirements of protons, particularly in IMPT, make BCO challenging. Protons are more sensitive than photons to anatomic changes, exhibit variable relative biological effectiveness along their paths, and, as recently discovered, may spare the immune system. Such factors must be considered in IMPT BCO, though doing so would make BCO more resource intensive and make it more challenging to extend BCO algorithms developed for IMRT to IMPT. A limited amount of research in IMPT BCO has been conducted; however, considerable additional work is needed for its further development to make it truly effective and computationally practical. This article aims to provide a review of existing BCO algorithms, most of which were developed for IMRT, and addresses important requirements specific to BCO for IMPT optimization that necessitate the modification of existing approaches or the development of new effective and efficient ones.

Beam angle optimization for intensity-modulated radiation therapy using a guided pattern search method.

Generally, the inverse planning of radiation therapy consists mainly of the fluence optimization. The beam angle optimization (BAO) in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) consists of selecting appropriate radiation incidence directions and may influence the quality of the IMRT plans, both to enhance better organ sparing and to improve tumor coverage. However, in clinical practice, most of the time, beam directions continue to be manually selected by the treatment planner without objective and rigorous criteria. The goal of this paper is to introduce a novel approach that uses beam's-eye-view dose ray tracing metrics within a pattern search method framework in the optimization of the highly non-convex BAO problem. Pattern search methods are derivative-free optimization methods that require a few function evaluations to progress and converge and have the ability to better avoid local entrapment. The pattern search method framework is composed of a search step and a poll step at each iteration. The poll step performs a local search in a mesh neighborhood and ensures the convergence to a local minimizer or stationary point. The search step provides the flexibility for a global search since it allows searches away from the neighborhood of the current iterate. Beam's-eye-view dose metrics assign a score to each radiation beam direction and can be used within the pattern search framework furnishing a priori knowledge of the problem so that directions with larger dosimetric scores are tested first. A set of clinical cases of head-and-neck tumors treated at the Portuguese Institute of Oncology of Coimbra is used to discuss the potential of this approach in the optimization of the BAO problem.

Radiobiological evaluation of forward and inverse IMRT using different fractionations for head and neck tumours.

PURPOSE: To quantify the radiobiological advantages obtained by an Improved Forward Planning technique (IFP) and two IMRT techniques using different fractionation schemes for the irradiation of head and neck tumours. The conventional radiation therapy technique (CONVT) was used here as a benchmark. METHODS: Seven patients with head and neck tumours were selected for this retrospective planning study. The PTV1 included the primary tumour, PTV2 the high risk lymph nodes and PTV3 the low risk lymph nodes. Except for the conventional technique where a maximum dose of 64.8 Gy was prescribed to the PTV1, 70.2 Gy, 59.4 Gy and 50.4 Gy were prescribed respectively to PTV1, PTV2 and PTV3. Except for IMRT2, all techniques were delivered by three sequential phases. The IFP technique used five to seven directions with a total of 15 to 21 beams. The IMRT techniques used five to nine directions and around 80 segments. The first, IMRT1, was prescribed with the conventional fractionation scheme of 1.8 Gy per fraction delivered in 39 fractions by three treatment phases. The second, IMRT2, simultaneously irradiated the PTV2 and PTV3 with 59.4 Gy and 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions, respectively, while the PTV1 was boosted with six subsequent fractions of 1.8 Gy. Tissue response was calculated using the relative seriality model and the Poisson Linear-Quadratic-Time model to simulate repopulation in the primary tumour. RESULTS: The average probability of total tumour control increased from 38% with CONVT to 80% with IFP, to 85% with IMRT1 and 89% with IMRT2. The shorter treatment time and larger dose per fraction obtained with IMRT2 resulted in an 11% increase in the probability of control in the PTV1 with respect to IFP and 7% relatively to IMRT1 (p < 0.05). The average probability of total patient complications was reduced from 80% with CONVT to 61% with IFP and 31% with IMRT. The corresponding probability of complications in the ipsilateral parotid was 63%, 42% and 20%; in the contralateral parotid it was 50%, 20% and 9%; in the oral cavity it was 2%, 15% and 4% and in the mandible it was 1%, 5% and 3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A significant improvement in treatment outcome was obtained with IMRT compared to conventional radiation therapy. The practical and biological advantages of IMRT2, employing a shorter treatment time, may outweigh the small differences obtained in the organs at risk between the two IMRT techniques. This technique is therefore presently being used in the clinic for selected patients with head and neck tumours. A significant improvement in the quality of the dose distribution was obtained with IFP compared to CONVT. Thus, this beam arrangement is used in the clinical routine as an alternative to IMRT.

The clinical value of non-coplanar photon beams in biologically optimized intensity modulated dose delivery on deep-seated tumours.

The aim of the present study is to compare the merits of different radiobiologically optimized treatment techniques using few-field planar and non-coplanar dose delivery on an advanced cancer of the cervix, with rectum and bladder as principal organs at risk. Classically, the rational for using non-coplanar beams is to minimize the overlap of beam entrance and exit regions and to find new beam directions avoiding organs at risk, in order to reduce damage to sensitive normal tissues. Two four-beam configurations have been extensively studied. The first consists of three evenly spaced coplanar beams and a fourth non-coplanar beam. A second tetrahedral-like configuration, with two symmetric non-coplanar beams at the same gantry angle and two coplanar beams, with optimized beam directions, was also tested. The present study shows that when radiobiologically optimized intensity modulated beams are applied to such a geometry, only a marginal increase in the treatment outcome can be achieved by non-coplanar beams compared to the optimal coplanar treatment. The main reason for this result is that the high dose in the beam-overlap regions is already optimally reduced by biologically optimized intensity modulation in the plane. The large number of degrees of freedom already incorporated in the treatment by the use of intensity modulation and radiobiological optimization, leads to the saturation of the benefit acquired by a further increase in the degrees of freedom with non-coplanar beams. In conclusion, the use of coplanar radiobiologically optimized intensity modulation simplifies the dose delivery, reducing the need for non-coplanar beam portals.