Adaptive diffusion smoothing: a diffusion-based method to reduce IMRT field complexity.

Inverse-planned intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is often able to achieve complex treatment planning goals that are unattainable with forward three-dimensional (3D) conformal planning. However, the common use of IMRT has introduced several new challenges. The potentially high degree of modulation in IMRT beams risks the loss of some advantages of 3D planning, such as excellent target coverage and high delivery efficiency. Previous attempts to reduce beam complexity by smoothing often result in plan degradation because the smoothing algorithm cannot distinguish between areas of desirable and undesirable modulation. The purpose of this work is to introduce and evaluate adaptive diffusion smoothing (ADS), a novel procedure designed to preferentially reduce IMRT beam complexity. In this method, a discrete diffusion equation is used to smooth IMRT beams using diffusion coefficients, automatically defined for each beamlet, that dictate the degree of smoothing allowed for each beamlet. This yields a method that can distinguish between areas of desirable and undesirable modulation. The ADS method has been incorporated into our optimization system as a weighted cost function penalty, with two diffusion coefficient definitions designed to promote: (1) uniform smoothing everywhere or (2) smoothing based on cost function gradients with respect to the plan beamlet intensities. The ADS method (with both coefficient types) has been tested in a phantom and in two clinical examples (prostate and head/neck). Both types of diffusion coefficients produce plans with reduced modulation and minimal dosimetric impact, but the cost function gradient-based coefficients show more potential for reducing beam modulation without affecting dosimetric plan quality. In summary, adaptive diffusion smoothing is a promising tool for ensuring that only the necessary amount of beam modulation is used, promoting more efficient and accurate IMRT planning, QA, and delivery.

[1]  Benedick A Fraass,et al.  Reduction of IMRT beam complexity through the use of beam modulation penalties in the objective function. , 2007, Medical physics.

[2]  R Mohan,et al.  The impact of fluctuations in intensity patterns on the number of monitor units and the quality and accuracy of intensity modulated radiotherapy. , 2000, Medical physics.

[3]  J. Battista,et al.  A convolution method of calculating dose for 15-MV x rays. , 1985, Medical physics.

[4]  Nzhde Agazaryan,et al.  Degeneracy, frequency response and filtering in IMRT optimization. , 2004, Physics in medicine and biology.

[5]  Jeff M Michalski,et al.  Toxicity after three-dimensional radiotherapy for prostate cancer on RTOG 9406 dose Level V. , 2005, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[6]  Ping Xia,et al.  A new smoothing procedure to reduce delivery segments for static MLC-based IMRT planning. , 2004, Medical physics.

[7]  T. Bortfeld,et al.  X-ray field compensation with multileaf collimators. , 1994, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[8]  A. Anderson,et al.  Reduction of noise in diffusion tensor images using anisotropic smoothing , 2005, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[9]  Lijun Ma,et al.  Smoothing intensity-modulated treatment delivery under hardware constraints. , 2002, Medical physics.

[10]  D M Shepard,et al.  Direct aperture optimization: a turnkey solution for step-and-shoot IMRT. , 2002, Medical physics.

[11]  Robert Jeraj,et al.  Adaptive anisotropic diffusion filtering of Monte Carlo dose distributions. , 2003, Physics in medicine and biology.

[12]  Jitendra Malik,et al.  Scale-Space and Edge Detection Using Anisotropic Diffusion , 1990, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[13]  F Nüsslin,et al.  Intensity modulated photon beams subject to a minimal surface smoothing constraint. , 2000, Physics in medicine and biology.

[14]  J Yang,et al.  Smoothing intensity-modulated beam profiles to improve the efficiency of delivery. , 2001, Medical physics.

[15]  Marina A. Epelman,et al.  Costlets: A Generalized Approach to Cost Functions for Automated Optimization of IMRT Treatment Plans , 2005 .

[16]  S. Webb,et al.  Constrained segment shapes in direct-aperture optimization for step-and-shoot IMRT. , 2006, Medical physics.

[17]  S. Webb,et al.  Inverse planning with constraints to generate smoothed intensity-modulated beams. , 1998, Physics in medicine and biology.

[18]  J. Deasy,et al.  Beyond bixels: generalizing the optimization parameters for intensity modulated radiation therapy. , 2002, Medical physics.

[19]  D. McShan,et al.  Lexicographic ordering: intuitive multicriteria optimization for IMRT , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[20]  J. Purdy,et al.  Penile bulb dose and impotence after three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer on RTOG 9406: findings from a prospective, multi-institutional, phase I/II dose-escalation study. , 2004, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[21]  M. Matuszak.  Controlling Beam Complexity in Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy. , 2007 .

[22]  B. Sakmann,et al.  Nonlinear anisotropic diffusion filtering of three-dimensional image data from two-photon microscopy. , 2004 .

[23]  Richard K Valicenti,et al.  Toxicity after three-dimensional radiotherapy for prostate cancer with RTOG 9406 dose level IV. , 2004, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[24]  Alexei A Samsonov,et al.  Noise‐adaptive nonlinear diffusion filtering of MR images with spatially varying noise levels , 2004, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[25]  Benedick A Fraass,et al.  Improving IMRT delivery efficiency using intensity limits during inverse planning. , 2005, Medical physics.