Paper detail

A Dynamic Programming Approach to Adaptive Fractionation

We conduct a theoretical study of various solution methods for the adaptive fractionation problem. The two messages of this paper are: (i) dynamic programming (DP) is a useful framework for adaptive radiation therapy, particularly adaptive fractionation, because it allows us to assess how close to optimal different methods are, and (ii) heuristic methods proposed in this paper are near-optimal, and therefore, can be used to evaluate the best possible benefit of using an adaptive fraction size. The essence of adaptive fractionation is to increase the fraction size when the tumor and organ-at-risk (OAR) are far apart (a "favorable" anatomy) and to decrease the fraction size when they are close together. Given that a fixed prescribed dose must be delivered to the tumor over the course of the treatment, such an approach results in a lower cumulative dose to the OAR when compared to that resulting from standard fractionation. We first establish a benchmark by using the DP algorithm to solve the problem exactly. In this case, we characterize the structure of an optimal policy, which provides guidance for our choice of heuristics. We develop two intuitive, numerically near-optimal heuristic policies, which could be used for more complex, high-dimensional problems. Furthermore, one of the heuristics requires only a statistic of the motion probability distribution, making it a reasonable method for use in a realistic setting. Numerically, we find that the amount of decrease in dose to the OAR can vary significantly (5 - 85%) depending on the amount of motion in the anatomy, the number of fractions, and the range of fraction sizes allowed. In general, the decrease in dose to the OAR is more pronounced when: (i) we have a high probability of large tumor-OAR distances, (ii) we use many fractions (as in a hyper-fractionated setting), and (iii) we allow large daily fraction size deviations.

preprint2011arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.