Advertisement

Radiotherapy optimAl Design: An Academic Radiotherapy Treatment Design System

  • R. Acosta
  • W. Brick
  • A. Hanna
  • A. Holder
  • D. Lara
  • G. McQuilen
  • D. Nevin
  • P. Uhlig
  • B. Salter
Part of the Operations Research/Computer Science Interfaces book series (ORCS, volume 47)

Abstract

Optimally designing radiotherapy and radiosurgery treatments to increase the likelihood of a successful recovery from cancer is an important application of operations research. Researchers have been hindered by the lack of academic software that supports comparisons between different solution techniques on the same design problem, and this article addresses the inherent difficulties of designing and implementing an academic treatment planning system. In particular, this article details the algorithms and the software design of Radiotherapy optimAl Design (RAD), which includes a novel reduction scheme, a flexible design to support comparative research, and a new imaging construct.

Key words:

Optimization Radiotherapy Radiosurgery Medical Physics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgements Research supported by the Cancer Therapy & Research Center in San Antonio, TX and by the Department of Radiation Oncology, Huntsman Cancer Center, Salt Lake City, UT.

References

  1. Ahuja R, Hamacher H (2004) Linear time network flow algorithm to minimize beam-on-time for unconstrained multileaf collimator problems in cancer radiation therapy. Tech. rep., Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Florida, revised version under review in NetworksGoogle Scholar
  2. Aleman D, Romeijn H, Dempsey J (2006) A response surface approach to beam orientation optimization in intensity modulated radiation therapy treatment planning. In: IIE Conference ProceedingsGoogle Scholar
  3. Aleman D, Romeijn H, Dempsey J (2007) A response surface approach to beam orientation optimization in intensity modulated radiation therapy treatment planning. Tech. rep., Department of Industrial Engineering, the University of Florida, to appear in IIE Transactions: Special Issue on Healthcare ApplicationsGoogle Scholar
  4. Baatar D, Hamacher H (2003) New LP model for multileaf collimators in radiation therapy planning. In: Proceedings of the Operations Research Peripatetic Postgraduate Programme Conference ORP3, Lambrecht, Germany, pp 11–29Google Scholar
  5. Bahr G, Kereiakes J, Horwitz H, Finney R, Galvin J, Goode K (1968a) The method of linear programming applied to radiation treatment planning. Radiology 91:686–693Google Scholar
  6. Bahr GK, Kereiakes JG, Horwitz H, Finney R, Galvin J, Goode K (1968b) The method of linear programming applied to radiation treatment planning. Radiology 91:686–693Google Scholar
  7. Bartolozzi F, et al (2000) Operational research techniques in medical treatment and diagnosis. a review. European Journal of Operations Research 121(3):435–466zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boender C, et al (1991) Shake-and-bake algorithms for generating uniform points on the boundary of bounded polyhedra. Operations Research 39(6)Google Scholar
  9. Boland N, Hamacher H, Lenzen F (2004) Minimizing beam-on time in cancer radiation treatment using multileaf collimators. Networks 43(4):226–240MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonder S (2004) Improving or support for healthcare delivery systems: Guidlines from military or experience. INFORMS Annual Conference, Denver, COGoogle Scholar
  11. Caron R (1998) Personal communicationsGoogle Scholar
  12. Cheek D, Holder A, Fuss M, Salter B (2004) The relationship between the number of shots and the quality of gamma knife radiosurgeries. Optimization and Engineering 6(4):449–462MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cho P, Lee S, Marks R, Oh S, Sutlief S, Phillips M (1998) Optimization of intensity modulated beams with volume constraints using two methods: Cost function minimization and projections onto convex sets. Medical Physics 25:435–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ehrgott M, Holder A, Reese J (2005) Beam selection in radiotherapy design. Tech. Rep. 95, Trinity University Mathematics, San Antonio, TXGoogle Scholar
  15. Hamacher H, Küfer KH (2002) Inverse radiation therapy planing—A multiple objective optimization approach. Discrete Applied Mathematics 118(1–2):145–161MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holder A (2001) Partitioning multiple objective optimal solutions with applications in radiotherapy design. Tech. rep., Department of Mathematics, Trinity University, San Antonio, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. Holder A (2004) Radiotherapy treatment design and linear programming. In: Bran-deau M, Sainfort F, Pierskalla W (eds) Operations Research and Health Care: A Handbook of Methods and Applications, Kluwer Academic Publishers, chap 29Google Scholar
  18. Holder A, Salter B (2004) A tutorial on radiation oncology and optimization. In: Greenberg H (ed) Emerging Methodologies and Applications in Operations Research, Kluwer Academic Press, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee E, Fox T, Crocker I (2003) Integer programming applied to intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment planning. Annals of Operations Research 119:165– 181zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lim G, Choi J, Mohan R (2007) Iterative solution methods for beam angle and flu-ence map optimization in intensity modulated radiation therapy planning. Tech. rep., Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, to appear in the Asia-Pacific Journal of Operations ResearchGoogle Scholar
  21. Lim J, Ferris M, Shepard D, Wright S, Earl M (2002) An optimization framework for conformal radiation treatment planning. Tech. Rep. Optimization Technical Report 02–10, Computer Sciences Department, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WisconsinGoogle Scholar
  22. Morrill S, Rosen I, Lane R, Belli J (1990) The influence of dose constraint point placement on optimized radiation therapy treatment planning. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics 19:129–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nizin P, Mooij R (1997) An approximation of centeral-axis absorbed dose in narrow photon beams. Medical Physics 24(11):1775–1780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pierskalla W (2004) We have no choice — health care delivery must be improved: The key lies in the application of operations research. INFORMS Annual Conference, Denver, COGoogle Scholar
  25. Rosen I, Lane R, Morrill S, Belli J (1991) Treatment plan optimization using linear programming. Medical Physics 18(2):141–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shepard D, Ferris M, Olivera G, Mackie T (1999) Optimizing the delivery of radiation therapy to cancer patients. SIAM Review 41(4):721–744zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Acosta
    • 1
  • W. Brick
    • 2
  • A. Hanna
    • 3
  • A. Holder
    • 4
  • D. Lara
    • 5
  • G. McQuilen
    • 6
  • D. Nevin
    • 7
  • P. Uhlig
    • 8
  • B. Salter
    • 9
  1. 1.Stanford UniversityPalo Alto
  2. 2.Trinity UniversitySan Antonio
  3. 3.St. Mary's UniversitySan Antonio
  4. 4.Rose-Hulman Institute of TechnologyTerre Haute
  5. 5.Altarum InstituteSan Antonio
  6. 6.The International School of the AmericasSan Antonio
  7. 7.Decision StrategiesHouston
  8. 8.St. Mary's UniversitySan Antonio
  9. 9.Huntsman Cancer InstituteSalt Lake City

Personalised recommendations