CP and IP approaches to cancer radiotherapy delivery optimization
We consider the problem of decomposing an integer matrix into a positively weighted sum of binary matrices that have the consecutive-ones property. This problem is well-known and of practical relevance. It has an important application in cancer radiation therapy treatment planning: the sequencing of multileaf collimators to deliver a given radiation intensity matrix, representing (a component of) the treatment plan. Two criteria characterise the efficacy of a decomposition: the beam-on time (the length of time the radiation source is switched on during the treatment), and the cardinality (the number of machine set-ups required to deliver the planned treatment). Minimising the former is known to be easy. However finding a decomposition of minimal cardinality is NP-hard. Progress so far has largely been restricted to heuristic algorithms, mostly using linear programming, integer programming and combinatorial enumerative methods as the solving approaches. We present a novel model, with corresponding constraint programming and integer programming formulations. We compare these computationally with previous formulations, and we show that constraint programming performs very well by comparison.
KeywordsModelling Symmetry-breaking Search Integer programming Intensity-modulated radiation therapy Multileaf collimator leaf sequencing
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Baatar, D. (2005). Matrix decomposition with time and cardinality objectives: Theory, algorithms and application to multileaf collimator sequencing. PhD thesis, University of Kaiserslautern, Germany.Google Scholar
- 3.Baatar, D., Boland, N., Brand, S., & Stuckey, P. J. (2007). Minimum cardinality matrix decomposition into consecutive-ones matrices: CP and IP approaches. In P. Van Hentenryck & L. A. Wolsey (Eds.), 4th int. conf. on integration of AI and OR techniques in Constraint Programming for Combinatorial Optimization Problems (CPAIOR’07). LNCS (Vol. 4510, pp. 1–15). Springer.Google Scholar
- 5.Bansal, N., Coppersmith, D., & Schieber, B. (2006). Minimizing setup and beam-on times in radiation therapy. In J. Díaz, K. Jansen, J. D. P. Rolim, & U. Zwick (Eds.), 9th int. workshop on Approximation Algorithms for Combinatorial Optimization Problems (APPROX’06). LNCS (Vol. 4110, pp. 27–38). Springer.Google Scholar
- 6.Brand, S. (2009). The sum-of-increments constraint in the consecutive-ones matrix decomposition problem. In S. Y. Shin & S. Ossowski (Eds.), Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC’09) (pp. 1417–1418). ACM.Google Scholar
- 7.Cambazard, H., O’Mahony, E., & O’Sullivan, B. (2009). A shortest path-based approach to the multileaf collimator sequencing problem. In W. J. van Hoeve & J. N. Hooker (Eds.), CPAIOR. LNCS (Vol. 5547, pp. 41–55). Springer.Google Scholar
- 8.Chen, D. Z., Hu, X. S., Wang, C., & Wu, X. R. (2005). Mountain reduction, block matching, and applications in intensity-modulated radiation therapy. In J. S. B. Mitchell & G. Rote (Eds.), Symposium on Computational Geometry (SGC’05) (pp. 35–44). ACM.Google Scholar
- 9.Choi, C. W., Harvey, W., Lee, J. H. M., & Stuckey, P. J. (2006). Finite domain bounds consistency revisited. In Australian conference on artificial intelligence. LNCS (Vol. 4304, pp. 49–58). Springer.Google Scholar
- 10.Dirkx, M. (2000). Static and dynamic intensity modulation in radiotherapy using a multileaf collimator. PhD thesis, Daniel de Hoed Cancer Centre, University Hospital Rotterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
- 12.Ehrgott, M., Hamacher, H. W., & Nußbaum, M. (2008). Decomposition of matrices and static multileaf collimators: a survey. In C. J. S. Alves, P. M. Pardalos, & L. N. Vicente (Eds.), Optimization in medicine (pp. 25–46). Springer.Google Scholar
- 15.G12 Team (2010). The G12 constraint programming platform. www.nicta.com.au/research/projects/constraint_programming_platform.
- 17.Kalinowski, T. (2005). Optimal multileaf collimator field segmentation. PhD thesis, University of Rostock, Germany.Google Scholar
- 18.Kalinowski, T. (2008). Multileaf collimator shape matrix decomposition. In G. J. Lim (Ed.), Optimization in medicine and biology (pp. 249–282). Auerbach.Google Scholar
- 20.Maher, M. J. (2002). Analysis of a global contiguity constraint. In 4th workshop on Rule-based Constraint Reasoning and Programming (RCoRP’02).Google Scholar
- 22.Pardalos, P. M., & Romeijn, H. E. (Eds.) (2008). Handbook of optimization in medicine. Springer.Google Scholar
- 24.Shen, K., & Schimpf, J. (2005). Eplex: Harnessing mathematical programming solvers for constraint logic programming. In P. van Beek (Ed.), 11th int. conference on principles and practice of Constraint Programming (CP’05). LNCS (Vol. 3709, pp. 622–636). Springer.Google Scholar
- 25.Tepper, J. E., & Mackie, T. R. (1999). Radiation therapy treatment optimization. In Seminars in radiation oncology (Vol. 9, pp. 1–118). Elsevier.Google Scholar
- 26.Wallace, M. G., Novello, S., & Schimpf, J. (1997). ECLiPSe: A platform for constraint logic programming. ICL Systems Journal, 12(1), 159–200.Google Scholar
- 27.Webb, S. (2001). Intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Institute of Physics Publishing.Google Scholar