ArticleMedical physics2017
Use of proximal operator graph solver for radiation therapy inverse treatment planning.
Article in Medical physics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A parallel algorithm for generating Pareto-optimal radiosurgery treatment plans.Medical physics · 2026Article
- A conceptual study on real-time adaptive radiation therapy optimization through ultra-fast beamlet control.Biomedical physics & engineering express · 2019Article
- Optimization based trajectory planning for real-time 6DoF robotic patient motion compensation systems.PloS one · 2019Article
- Teaching treatment planning for protons with educational open-source software: experience with FoCa and matRad.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2018Article
- Fast dose optimization for rotating shield brachytherapy.Medical physics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMost radiation therapy optimization problems can be formulated as an unconstrained problem and solved efficiently by quasi-Newton methods such as the Limited-memory Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno (L-BFGS) algorithm. However, several next generation planning techniques such as total variation regularization- based optimization and MV+kV optimization, involve constrained or mixed-norm optimization, and cannot be solved by quasi-Newton methods. Using standard optimization algorithms on such problems often leads to prohibitively long optimization times and large memory requirements. This work investigates the use of a recently developed proximal operator graph solver (POGS) in solving such radiation therapy optimization problems.
methodsRadiation therapy inverse treatment planning was formulated as a graph form problem, and the proximal operators of POGS for quadratic optimization were derived. POGS was exploited for the first time to impose hard dose constraints along with soft constraints in the objective function. The solver was applied to several clinical treatment sites (TG119, liver, prostate, and head&neck), and the results were compared to the solutions obtained by other commercial and non-commercial optimizers.
resultsFor inverse planning optimization with nonnegativity box constraints on beamlet intensity, the speed of POGS can compete with that of LBFGSB in some situations. For constrained and mixed-norm optimization, POGS is about one or two orders of magnitude faster than the other solvers while requiring less computer memory.
conclusionsPOGS was used for solving inverse treatment planning problems involving constrained or mixed-norm formulation on several example sites. This approach was found to improve upon standard solvers in terms of computation speed and memory usage, and is capable of solving traditionally difficult problems, such as total variation regularization-based optimization and combined MV+kV optimization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.