In high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy, conventional dose optimization algorithms consider multiple objectives in the form of an aggregate function that transforms the multiobjective problem into a single-objective problem. As a result, there is a loss of information on the available alternative possible solutions. This method assumes that the treatment planner exactly understands the correlation between competing objectives and knows the physical constraints. This knowledge is provided by the Pareto trade-off set obtained by single-objective optimization algorithms with a repeated optimization with different importance vectors. A mapping technique avoids non-feasible solutions with negative dwell weights and allows the use of constraint free gradient-based deterministic algorithms. We compare various such algorithms and methods which could improve their performance. This finally allows us to generate a large number of solutions in a few minutes. We use objectives expressed in terms of dose variances obtained from a few hundred sampling points in the planning target volume (PTV) and in organs at risk (OAR). We compare two- to four-dimensional Pareto fronts obtained with the deterministic algorithms and with a fast-simulated annealing algorithm. For PTV-based objectives, due to the convex objective functions, the obtained solutions are global optimal. If OARs are included, then the solutions found are also global optimal, although local minima may be present as suggested.
PurposeOne of the issues that a planner is often facing in HDR brachytherapy is the selective existence of high dose volumes around some few dominating dwell positions. If there is no information available about its necessity (e.g. location of a GTV), then it is reasonable to investigate whether this can be avoided. This effect can be eliminated by limiting the free modulation of the dwell times. HIPO, an inverse treatment plan optimization algorithm, offers this option. In treatment plan optimization there are various methods that try to regularize the variation of dose non-uniformity using purely dosimetric measures. However, although these methods can help in finding a good dose distribution they do not provide any information regarding the expected treatment outcome as described by radiobiology based indices.Material and methodsThe quality of 12 clinical HDR brachytherapy implants for prostate utilizing HIPO and modulation restriction (MR) has been compared to alternative plans with HIPO and free modulation (without MR). All common dose-volume indices for the prostate and the organs at risk have been considered together with radiobiological measures. The clinical effectiveness of the different dose distributions was investigated by calculating the response probabilities of the tumors and organs-at-risk (OARs) involved in these prostate cancer cases. The radiobiological models used are the Poisson and the relative seriality models. Furthermore, the complication-free tumor control probability, P+ and the biologically effective uniform dose (trueD¯true¯) were used for treatment plan evaluation and comparison.ResultsOur results demonstrate that HIPO with a modulation restriction value of 0.1-0.2 delivers high quality plans which are practically equivalent to those achieved with free modulation regarding the clinically used dosimetric indices. In the comparison, many of the dosimetric and radiobiological indices showed significantly different results. The modulation restricted clinical plans demonstrated a lower total dwell time by a mean of 1.4% that was proved to be statistically significant (p = 0.002). The HIPO with MR treatment plans produced a higher P+ by 0.5%, which stemmed from a better sparing of the OARs by 1.0%.ConclusionsBoth the dosimetric and radiobiological comparison shows that the modulation restricted optimization gives on average similar results with the optimization without modulation restriction in the examined clinical cases. Concluding, based on our results, it appears that the applied dwell time regularization technique is expected to introduce a minor improvement in the effectiveness of the optimized HDR dose distributions.
We have studied the accuracy of statistical parameters of dose distributions in brachytherapy using actual clinical implants. These include the mean, minimum and maximum dose values and the variance of the dose distribution inside the PTV (planning target volume), and on the surface of the PTV. These properties have been studied as a function of the number of uniformly distributed sampling points. These parameters, or the variants of these parameters, are used directly or indirectly in optimization procedures or for a description of the dose distribution. The accurate determination of these parameters depends on the sampling point distribution from which they have been obtained. Some optimization methods ignore catheters and critical structures surrounded by the PTV or alternatively consider as surface dose points only those on the contour lines of the PTV. D(min) and D(max) are extreme dose values which are either on the PTV surface or within the PTV. They must be avoided for specification and optimization purposes in brachytherapy. Using D(mean) and the variance of D which we have shown to be stable parameters, achieves a more reliable description of the dose distribution on the PTV surface and within the PTV volume than does D(min) and D(max). Generation of dose points on the real surface of the PTV is obligatory and the consideration of catheter volumes results in a realistic description of anatomical dose distributions.
For the purpose of evaluating the use of 169Yb for prostate High Dose Rate brachytherapy (HDR), a hypothetical 169Yb source is assumed with the exact same design of the new microSelectron source replacing the 192Ir active core by pure 169Yb metal. Monte Carlo simulation is employed for the full dosimetric characterization of both sources and results are compared following the AAPM TG-43 dosimetric formalism. Monte Carlo calculated dosimetry results are incorporated in a commercially available treatment planning system (SWIFT), which features an inverse treatment planning option based on a multiobjective dose optimization engine. The quality of prostate HDR brachytherapy using the real 192Ir and hypothetical 169Yb source is compared in a comprehensive analysis of different prostate implants in terms of the multiobjective dose optimization solutions as well as treatment quality indices such as Dose Volume Histograms (DVH) and the Conformal Index (COIN). Given that scattering overcompensates for absorption in intermediate photon energies and distances in the range of interest to prostate HDR brachytherapy, 169Yb proves at least equivalent to 192Ir irrespective of prostate volume. This has to be evaluated in view of the shielding requirements for the 169Yb energies that are minimal relative to that for 192Ir.
The aim of our study was to develop an algorithm to simulate the digitally reconstructed radiograph (DRR) calculation process for different beam qualities (photon energies) in the range 50 keV to 12 MeV. This was achieved using volumetric anatomical data for the patient obtained from three-dimensional diagnostic CT images. These DRR images can be used in three-dimensional treatment planning for external beam radiotherapy as well as for brachytherapy in the same way as conventional radiographic films. The advantages of using such DRRs in modern 3D brachytherapy treatment planning are shown. A number of tools are described, illustrating that the application of DRRs in brachytherapy is very useful.
Although the decrease of quality of dosimetric and radiobiological parameters occurs, this does not cause clinically unacceptable changes to the 3D dose distribution, according to our clinical protocol.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.