Characterizing the combinatorial beam angle selection problem

Abstract

The beam angle selection (BAS) problem in intensity-modulated radiation therapy is often interpreted as a combinatorial optimization problem, i.e. finding the best combination of η beams in a discrete set of candidate beams. It is well established that the combinatorial BAS problem may be solved efficiently with metaheuristics such as simulated annealing or genetic algorithms. However, the underlying parameters of the optimization process, such as the inclusion of non-coplanar candidate beams, the angular resolution in the space of candidate beams, and the number of evaluated beam ensembles as well as the relative performance of different metaheuristics have not yet been systematically investigated. We study these open questions in a meta-analysis of four strategies for combinatorial optimization in order to provide a reference for future research related to the BAS problem in intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment planning. We introduce a high-performance inverse planning engine for BAS. It performs a full fluence optimization for ≈3600 treatment plans per hour while handling up to 50 GB of dose influence data (≈1400 candidate beams). For three head and neck patients, we compare the relative performance of a genetic, a cross-entropy, a simulated annealing and a naive iterative algorithm. The selection of ensembles with 5, 7, 9 and 11 beams considering either only coplanar or all feasible candidate beams is studied for an angular resolution of 5°, 10°, 15° and 20° in the space of candidate beams. The impact of different convergence criteria is investigated in comparison to a fixed termination after the evaluation of 10 000 beam ensembles. In total, our simulations comprise a full fluence optimization for about 3000 000 treatment plans. All four combinatorial BAS strategies yield significant improvements of the objective function value and of the corresponding dose distributions compared to standard beam configurations with equi-spaced coplanar beams. The genetic and the cross-entropy algorithms showed faster convergence in the very beginning of the optimization but the simulated annealing algorithm eventually arrived at almost the same objective function values. These three strategies typically yield clinically equivalent treatment plans. The iterative algorithm showed the worst convergence properties. The choice of the termination criterion had a stronger influence on the performance of the simulated annealing algorithm than on the performance of the genetic and the cross-entropy algorithms. We advocate to terminate the optimization process after the evaluation of 1000 beam combinations without objective function decrease. For our simulations, this resulted in an average deviation of the objective function from the reference value after 10 000 evaluated beam ensembles of 0.5% for all metaheuristics. On average, there was only a minor improvement when increasing the angular resolution in the space of candidate beam angles from 20° to 5°. However, we observed significant improvements when considering non-coplanar candidate beams for challenging head and neck cases.