Researcher profile

Neil Panjwani

Neil Panjwani contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 11 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
1works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

1 published item(s)

preprint2021arXiv

Pareto Optimal Projection Search (POPS): Automated Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning by Direct Search of the Pareto Surface

Objective: Radiation therapy treatment planning is a time-consuming, iterative process with potentially high inter-planner variability. Fully automated treatment planning processes could reduce a planner's active treatment planning time and remove inter-planner variability, with the potential to tremendously improve patient turnover and quality of care. In developing fully automated algorithms for treatment planning, we have two main objectives: to produce plans that are 1) Pareto optimal and 2) clinically acceptable. Here, we propose the Pareto optimal projection search (POPS) algorithm, which provides a general framework for directly searching the Pareto front. Methods: Our POPS algorithm is a novel automated planning method that combines two main search processes: 1) gradient-free search in the decision variable space and 2) projection of decision variables to the Pareto front using the bisection method. We demonstrate the performance of POPS by comparing with clinical treatment plans. As one possible quantitative measure of treatment plan quality, we construct a clinical acceptability scoring function (SF) modified from the previously developed general evaluation metric (GEM). Results: On a dataset of 21 prostate cases collected as part of clinical workflow, our proposed POPS algorithm produces Pareto optimal plans that are clinically acceptable in regards to dose conformity, dose homogeneity, and sparing of organs-at-risk. Conclusion: Our proposed POPS algorithm provides a general framework for fully automated treatment planning that achieves clinically acceptable dosimetric quality without requiring active planning from human planners. Significance: Our fully automated POPS algorithm addresses many key limitations of other automated planning approaches, and we anticipate that it will substantially improve treatment planning workflow.