Reduction of IMRT beam complexity through the use of beam modulation penalties in the objective function

Abstract

Inverse planned intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has become commonplace in treatment centers across the world. Due to the implications of beam complexity on treatment planning, delivery, and quality assurance, several methods have been proposed to reduce the complexity. These methods include beamlet intensity restrictions, smoothing procedures, and direct aperture optimization. Many of these methods typically sacrifice target coverage and/or normal tissue sparing in return for increased beam smoothness and delivery efficiency. In the present work, we penalize beam modulation in the inverse planning cost function to reduce beam complexity and increase delivery efficiency, while maintaining dosimetric quality. Three modulation penalties were tested: two that penalized deviation from Savitzky-Golay filtered versions of the optimized beams, and one that penalized the plan intensity map variation (a measure of overall beam modulation). The modulation penalties were applied at varying weights in a weighted sum objective (or cost) function to investigate their ability to reduce beam complexity while preserving IMRT plan quality. The behavior of the penalties was characterized on a CT phantom, and then clinical optimization comparisons were performed in the brain, prostate, and head/neck. Comparisons were made between (i) plans with a baseline cost function (ii) plans with a baseline cost function employing maximum beamlet intensity limits, and (iii) plans with each of the modulation penalties added to the baseline cost function. Plan analysis was based upon dose-volume histograms, relevant dose metrics, beam modulation, and monitor units required for step and shoot delivery. Each of the techniques yielded improvements over a baseline cost function in terms of MU reduction. In most cases, this was achieved with minimal change to the plan DVHs and metrics. In all cases, an acceptable plan was reached with each of the methods while reducing MU substantially. Each individual method has merit as a tool for reducing IMRT beam complexity and could be easily applied in the clinic to improve overall inverse plan quality. However, the penalty based upon the plan intensity map variation consistently produced the most delivery-efficient plans with the fewest computations.