Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32356335›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2020

Automating proton treatment planning with beam angle selection using Bayesian optimization.

Vicki T Taasti, Linda Hong, Jin Sup Andy Shim, Joseph O Deasy, Masoud Zarepisheh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Vicki T TaastiDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Linda HongDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Jin Sup Andy ShimNew York Proton Center, New York, NY, USA.
Joseph O DeasyDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Masoud ZarepishehDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
MSK Cancer CenterNCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

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

Proton TherapyRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedAlgorithmsBayes TheoremHumansProtonsRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedProtonsautomated treatment planningbayesian optimizationbeam angle optimizationconstrained optimizationproton treatment planning

Identifiers

PMID32356335
PMCPMC7429260

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.