No abstract

No abstract

This report represents a summary of presentations at a joint workshop of the National Institutes of Health and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM). Current methodological issues in dose-volume modeling are addressed here from several different perspectives. Areas of emphasis include (a) basic modeling issues including the equivalent uniform dose framework and the bootstrap method, (b) issues in the valid use of statistics, including the need for meta-analysis, (c) issues in dealing with organ deformation and its effects on treatment response, (d) evidence for volume effects for rectal complications, (e) the use of volume effect data in liver and lung as a basis for dose escalation studies, and (f) implications of uncertainties in volume effect knowledge on optimized treatment planning. Taken together, these approaches to studying volume effects describe many implications for the development and use of this information in radiation oncology practice. Areas of significant interest for further research include the meta-analysis of clinical data; interinstitutional pooled data analyses of volume effects; analyses of the uncertainties in outcome prediction models, minimal parameter number outcome models for ranking treatment plans (e.g., equivalent uniform dose); incorporation of the effect of motion in the outcome prediction; dose-escalation/isorisk protocols based on outcome models; the use of functional imaging to study radioresponse; and the need for further small animal tumor control probability/normal tissue complication probability studies.

A genetic algorithm for generating beam weights is described. The algorithm improves an objective measure of the dose distribution while respecting dose volume constraints placed on critical structures. The algorithm was used to select beam weights for treatment of abdominal tumors. Weights were selected for up to 36 beams. Dose volume limits were placed on normal organs and a dose inhomogeneity limit was placed on tumor. Volumes were represented as sets of several hundred discrete points. The algorithm searched for the beam weights that would make the minimum tumor dose as high as the constraints would allow. The results were checked using dose volume histograms with standard sized grids. Nineteen trials were created using six patient cases by changing the required field margin or allowed beam position in each case. The sampling of points was sufficiently dense to yield solutions that strictly satisfied the constraints when the prescribed dose was renormalized by a factor of less than 6%. The genetic algorithm supplied solutions in 49 min on average, and in a maximum time of 87 min. The randomized search does not guarantee optimality, but high tumor doses were obtained. An example is shown for which the solution of the genetic algorithm gave a minimum tumor dose 7 Gy higher than the solution given by a simulated annealing algorithm under the same set of constraints. The genetic algorithm can be generalized to admit nonlinear functions of the beam intensities in the objective or in the constraints. These can include tumor control and normal tissue complication probabilities. The genetic algorithm is an attractive procedure for assigning beam weights in multifield plans. It improves the dose distribution while respecting specified rules for tissue tolerance.