ArticleMedical physics2020
Automating proton treatment planning with beam angle selection using Bayesian optimization.
Article in Medical physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality assurance for deep learning-based proton therapy planning in routine clinical use for oropharyngeal cancer.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Deep learning-based dose prediction in proton beam therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of network architectures and loss functions.Journal of radiation research · 2026Article
- Compressed radiotherapy treatment planning: A new paradigm for rapid and high-quality treatment planning optimization.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Simultaneous reduction of number of spots and energy layers in intensity modulated proton therapy for rapid spot scanning delivery.Medical physics · 2024Article
- A unified path seeking algorithm for IMRT and IMPT beam orientation optimization.Physics in medicine and biology · 2023Article
- Reflections on beam configuration optimization for intensity-modulated proton therapy.Physics in medicine and biology · 2022Review
- Influence of Beam Angle on Normal Tissue Complication Probability of Knowledge-Based Head and Neck Cancer Proton Planning.Cancers · 2022Article
- Reformulated McNamara RBE-weighted beam orientation optimization for intensity modulated proton therapy.Medical physics · 2022Article
- A reinforcement learning application of a guided Monte Carlo Tree Search algorithm for beam orientation selection in radiation therapy.Machine learning: science and technology · 2021Article
- Beam Angle Optimization for Double-Scattering Proton Delivery Technique Using an Eclipse Application Programming Interface and Convolutional Neural Network.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Automated and Clinically Optimal Treatment Planning for Cancer Radiotherapy.INFORMS journal on applied analyticsArticle
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
purposeTo present a fully automated treatment planning process for proton therapy including beam angle selection using a novel Bayesian optimization approach and previously developed constrained hierarchical fluence optimization method.
methodsWe adapted our in-house automated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment planning system, which is based on constrained hierarchical optimization and referred to as ECHO (expedited constrained hierarchical optimization), for proton therapy. To couple this to beam angle selection, we propose using a novel Bayesian approach. By integrating ECHO with this Bayesian beam selection approach, we obtain a fully automated treatment planning framework including beam angle selection. Bayesian optimization is a global optimization technique which only needs to search a small fraction of the search space for slowly varying objective functions (i.e., smooth functions). Expedited constrained hierarchical optimization is run for some initial beam angle candidates and the resultant treatment plan for each beam configuration is rated using a clinically relevant treatment score function. Bayesian optimization iteratively predicts the treatment score for not-yet-evaluated candidates to find the best candidate to be optimized next with ECHO. We tested this technique on five head-and-neck (HN) patients with two coplanar beams. In addition, tests were performed with two noncoplanar and three coplanar beams for two patients.
resultsFor the two coplanar configurations, the Bayesian optimization found the optimal beam configuration after running ECHO for, at most, 4% of all potential configurations (23 iterations) for all patients (range: 2%-4%). Compared with the beam configurations chosen by the planner, the optimal configurations reduced the mandible maximum dose by 6.6 Gy and high dose to the unspecified normal tissues by 3.8 Gy, on average. For the two noncoplanar and three coplanar beam configurations, the algorithm converged after 45 iterations (examining <1% of all potential configurations).
conclusionsA fully automated and efficient treatment planning process for proton therapy, including beam angle optimization was developed. The algorithm automatically generates high-quality plans with optimal beam angle configuration by combining Bayesian optimization and ECHO. As the Bayesian optimization is capable of handling complex nonconvex functions, the treatment score function which is used in the algorithm to evaluate the dose distribution corresponding to each beam configuration can contain any clinically relevant metric.
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.