Comparison of Evolutionary and Deterministic Multiobjective Algorithms for Dose Optimization in Brachytherapy

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1993)


We compare two multiobjective evolutionary algorithms, with deterministic gradient based optimization methods for the dose optimization problem in high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy. The optimization considers up to 300 parameters. The objectives are expressed in terms of statistical parameters, from dose distributions. These parameters are approximated from dose values from a small number of points. For these objectives it is known that the deterministic algorithms converge to the global Pareto front. The evolutionary algorithms produce only local Pareto-optimal fronts. The performance of the multiobjective evolutionary algorithms is improved if a small part of the population is initialized with solutions from deterministic algorithms. An explanation is that only a very small part of the search space is close to the global Pareto front. We estimate the performance of the algorithms in some cases in terms of probability compared to a random optimum search method.


Evolutionary Algorithm Planning Target Volume Pareto Front Dose Distribution Objective Space 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lahanas, M., Baltas, D., Zamboglou, N.: Anatomy-based three-dimensional dose optimization in brachytherapy using multiobjective genetic algorithms. Med. Phys. 26 (1999) 1904–1918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lahanas, M., Milickovic, N., Baltas, Zamboglou, N.: Application of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms for dose optimization problems in brachytherapy. These proceedingsGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bazaraa, M. S., Sherali, H. D., Shetty, C. M.: Nonlinear Programming, Theory and Algorithms. Wiley, New York. 1993zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zitzler, E., Deb, K., Thiele, L.: Comparison of Multiobjective Evolutionary Algo rithms: Empirical Results. Evolutionary Computation. 8 (2000) 173–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yang, G., Reinstein, L. E., Pai, S., Xu, Z.: A new genetic algorithm technique in optimization of permanent 125I prostate implants. Med. Phys. 25 (1998) 2308–2315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yu, Y., Schell, M. C.: A genetic algorithm for the optimization of prostate implants. Med. Phys. 23 (1996) 2085–2091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W.T., Flannery, B. P.: Numerical Recipes in C. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. 1992Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Michalewicz, Z.: Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures = Evolution Programs. Springer Verlag. 1996Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vicini, A., Quagliarella, Q.: Airfoil and wing design through hybrid optimization strategies. American Insitute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Report AIAA-98-2729 (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Das, I. Dennis, J.: A Closer Look at Drawbacks of Minimizing Weighted Sums of Objectives for Pareto Set Generation in Multicriteria Optimization Problems. Structural Optimization 14 (1997) 63–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zitzler, E., Thiele, L.: Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: A Comparative Case Study and the Strength Pareto Approach. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation. 37 (1999) 257–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Deb, K.: Multi-objective Genetic Algorithms: Problem Difficulties and Construction of Test Problems. Evolutionary Compuation 7 (1999) 205–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holland, J. H.: Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. Ann Arbor, Unicersity o Michigan Press. 1975Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fonseca, M., Fleming, P. J.: Multiobjective optimization and multiple constraint handling with evolutionary algorithms I: A unified formulation Research report 564, Dept. Automatic Control and Systems Eng. University of Shefield, Shefield, U.K., Jan. 1995Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fonseca, M., Fleming, P. J.: An overview of evolutionary algorithms in multiobjective optimization. Evolutionary Computation 3 (1995) 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Horn, J., Nafpliotis, N.: Multiobjective optimization using the niched Pareto genetic Algorithm. IlliGAL Report No.93005. Illinois Genetic Algorithms Laboratory. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1993Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medical Physics and Engineering, StrahlenklinikOffenbachGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Communication and Computer SystemsNational Technical University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations