Feasibility of identification of gamma knife planning strategies by identification of pareto optimal gamma knife plans

Cole A. Giller

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The use of conformity indices to optimize Gamma Knife planning is common, but does not address important tradeoffs between dose to tumor and normal tissue. Pareto analysis has been used for this purpose in other applications, but not for Gamma Knife (GK) planning. The goal of this work is to use computer models to show that Pareto analysis may be feasible for GK planning to identify dosimetric tradeoffs. We define a GK plan A to be Pareto dominant to B if the prescription isodose volume of A covers more tumor but not more normal tissue than B, or if A covers less normal tissue but not less tumor than B. A plan is Pareto optimal if it is not dominated by any other plan. Two different Pareto optimal plans represent different tradeoffs between dose to tumor and normal tissue, because neither plan dominates the other. 'GK simulator' software calculated dose distributions for GK plans, and was called repetitively by a genetic algorithm to calculate Pareto dominant plans. Three irregular tumor shapes were tested in 17 trials using various combinations of shots. The mean number of Pareto dominant plans/trial was 59 ± 17 (sd). Different planning strategies were identified by large differences in shot positions, and 70 of the 153 coordinate plots (46%) showed differences of 5mm or more. The Pareto dominant plans dominated other nearby plans. Pareto dominant plans represent different dosimetric tradeoffs and can be systematically calculated using genetic algorithms. Automatic identification of non-intuitive planning strategies may be feasible with these methods.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)561-574
Number of pages14
JournalTechnology in Cancer Research and Treatment
Volume10
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2011

Fingerprint

Neoplasms
Levonorgestrel
Computer Simulation
Prescriptions
Software

Keywords

  • Gamma knife
  • Genetic algorithm
  • Pareto
  • Radiosurgery

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Feasibility of identification of gamma knife planning strategies by identification of pareto optimal gamma knife plans. / Giller, Cole A.

In: Technology in Cancer Research and Treatment, Vol. 10, No. 6, 01.01.2011, p. 561-574.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{0245a6c19bc74b7fb2804dd25d43f4d2,
title = "Feasibility of identification of gamma knife planning strategies by identification of pareto optimal gamma knife plans",
abstract = "The use of conformity indices to optimize Gamma Knife planning is common, but does not address important tradeoffs between dose to tumor and normal tissue. Pareto analysis has been used for this purpose in other applications, but not for Gamma Knife (GK) planning. The goal of this work is to use computer models to show that Pareto analysis may be feasible for GK planning to identify dosimetric tradeoffs. We define a GK plan A to be Pareto dominant to B if the prescription isodose volume of A covers more tumor but not more normal tissue than B, or if A covers less normal tissue but not less tumor than B. A plan is Pareto optimal if it is not dominated by any other plan. Two different Pareto optimal plans represent different tradeoffs between dose to tumor and normal tissue, because neither plan dominates the other. 'GK simulator' software calculated dose distributions for GK plans, and was called repetitively by a genetic algorithm to calculate Pareto dominant plans. Three irregular tumor shapes were tested in 17 trials using various combinations of shots. The mean number of Pareto dominant plans/trial was 59 ± 17 (sd). Different planning strategies were identified by large differences in shot positions, and 70 of the 153 coordinate plots (46{\%}) showed differences of 5mm or more. The Pareto dominant plans dominated other nearby plans. Pareto dominant plans represent different dosimetric tradeoffs and can be systematically calculated using genetic algorithms. Automatic identification of non-intuitive planning strategies may be feasible with these methods.",
keywords = "Gamma knife, Genetic algorithm, Pareto, Radiosurgery",
author = "Giller, {Cole A.}",
year = "2011",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/153303461101000606",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "561--574",
journal = "Technology in Cancer Research and Treatment",
issn = "1533-0346",
publisher = "Adenine Press",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Feasibility of identification of gamma knife planning strategies by identification of pareto optimal gamma knife plans

AU - Giller, Cole A.

PY - 2011/1/1

Y1 - 2011/1/1

N2 - The use of conformity indices to optimize Gamma Knife planning is common, but does not address important tradeoffs between dose to tumor and normal tissue. Pareto analysis has been used for this purpose in other applications, but not for Gamma Knife (GK) planning. The goal of this work is to use computer models to show that Pareto analysis may be feasible for GK planning to identify dosimetric tradeoffs. We define a GK plan A to be Pareto dominant to B if the prescription isodose volume of A covers more tumor but not more normal tissue than B, or if A covers less normal tissue but not less tumor than B. A plan is Pareto optimal if it is not dominated by any other plan. Two different Pareto optimal plans represent different tradeoffs between dose to tumor and normal tissue, because neither plan dominates the other. 'GK simulator' software calculated dose distributions for GK plans, and was called repetitively by a genetic algorithm to calculate Pareto dominant plans. Three irregular tumor shapes were tested in 17 trials using various combinations of shots. The mean number of Pareto dominant plans/trial was 59 ± 17 (sd). Different planning strategies were identified by large differences in shot positions, and 70 of the 153 coordinate plots (46%) showed differences of 5mm or more. The Pareto dominant plans dominated other nearby plans. Pareto dominant plans represent different dosimetric tradeoffs and can be systematically calculated using genetic algorithms. Automatic identification of non-intuitive planning strategies may be feasible with these methods.

AB - The use of conformity indices to optimize Gamma Knife planning is common, but does not address important tradeoffs between dose to tumor and normal tissue. Pareto analysis has been used for this purpose in other applications, but not for Gamma Knife (GK) planning. The goal of this work is to use computer models to show that Pareto analysis may be feasible for GK planning to identify dosimetric tradeoffs. We define a GK plan A to be Pareto dominant to B if the prescription isodose volume of A covers more tumor but not more normal tissue than B, or if A covers less normal tissue but not less tumor than B. A plan is Pareto optimal if it is not dominated by any other plan. Two different Pareto optimal plans represent different tradeoffs between dose to tumor and normal tissue, because neither plan dominates the other. 'GK simulator' software calculated dose distributions for GK plans, and was called repetitively by a genetic algorithm to calculate Pareto dominant plans. Three irregular tumor shapes were tested in 17 trials using various combinations of shots. The mean number of Pareto dominant plans/trial was 59 ± 17 (sd). Different planning strategies were identified by large differences in shot positions, and 70 of the 153 coordinate plots (46%) showed differences of 5mm or more. The Pareto dominant plans dominated other nearby plans. Pareto dominant plans represent different dosimetric tradeoffs and can be systematically calculated using genetic algorithms. Automatic identification of non-intuitive planning strategies may be feasible with these methods.

KW - Gamma knife

KW - Genetic algorithm

KW - Pareto

KW - Radiosurgery

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=82755195495&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=82755195495&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/153303461101000606

DO - 10.1177/153303461101000606

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - 561

EP - 574

JO - Technology in Cancer Research and Treatment

JF - Technology in Cancer Research and Treatment

SN - 1533-0346

IS - 6

ER -