Comparative behaviour of the Dynamically Penalized Likelihood algorithm in inverse radiation therapy planning

被引:53
作者
Llacer, J
Solberg, TD
Promberger, C
机构
[1] EC Engn Consultants LLC, Los Gatos, CA 95032 USA
[2] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Dept Radiat Oncol, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA
[3] BrainLAB AG, D-85551 Heimstetten, Germany
关键词
D O I
10.1088/0031-9155/46/10/309
中图分类号
R318 [生物医学工程];
学科分类号
0831 ;
摘要
This paper presents a description of tests carried out to compare the behaviour of five algorithms in inverse radiation therapy planning: (1) The Dynamically Penalized Likelihood (DPL), an algorithm based on statistical estimation theory; (2) an accelerated version of the same algorithm; (3) a new fast adaptive simulated annealing (ASA) algorithm; (4) a conjugate gradient method, and (5) a Newton gradient method. A three-dimensional mathematical phantom and two clinical cases have been studied in detail. The phantom consisted of a U-shaped tumour with a partially enclosed 'spinal cord'. The clinical examples were a cavernous sinus meningioma and a prostate case. The algorithms have been tested in carefully selected and controlled conditions so as to ensure fairness in the assessment of results. It has been found that all five methods can yield relatively similar optimizations, except when a very demanding optimization is carried out. For the easier cases, the differences are principally in robustness, ease of use and optimization speed. In the more demanding case, there are significant differences in the resulting dose distributions. The accelerated DPL emerges as possibly the algorithm of choice for clinical practice. An appendix describes the differences in behaviour between the new ASA method and the one based on a patent by the Nomos Corporation.
引用
收藏
页码:2637 / 2663
页数:27
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]  
Bortfeld T, 1997, PROCEEDINGS OF THE XIITH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THE USE OF COMPUTERS IN RADIATION THERAPY, P1
[2]   METHODS OF IMAGE-RECONSTRUCTION FROM PROJECTIONS APPLIED TO CONFORMATION RADIOTHERAPY [J].
BORTFELD, T ;
BURKELBACH, J ;
BOESECKE, R ;
SCHLEGEL, W .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 1990, 35 (10) :1423-1434
[3]  
*BRAINLAB AG, 2001, BRAINSCAN VERS 5 0 P
[4]  
HILDEBRANDT FB, 1974, INTRO NUMERICAL ANAL
[5]  
Kessen A, 2000, USE OF COMPUTERS IN RADIATION THERAPY, P545
[6]   Inverse radiation treatment planning using the Dynamically Penalized Likelihood method [J].
Llacer, J .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 1997, 24 (11) :1751-1764
[7]  
Llacer J., 1989, International Journal of Imaging Systems and Technology, V1, P132, DOI 10.1002/ima.1850010205
[8]  
Llacer J, 2000, USE OF COMPUTERS IN RADIATION THERAPY, P23
[9]   SEMI-AUTOMATED RADIOTHERAPY TREATMENT PLANNING WITH A MATHEMATICAL-MODEL TO SATISFY TREATMENT GOALS [J].
POWLIS, WD ;
ALTSCHULER, MD ;
CENSOR, Y ;
BUHLE, EL .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 1989, 16 (01) :271-276
[10]  
Shepp L A, 1982, IEEE Trans Med Imaging, V1, P113, DOI 10.1109/TMI.1982.4307558