{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04446344591705857, 'fraction_numerical': 0.017528858486532708, 'mean_word_length': 5.324324324324325, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Improved efficiency of multi-criteria IMPT treatment planning using iterative resampling of randomly placed pencil beams

This study investigates whether ‘pencil beam resampling’, i.e. iterative selection and weight optimization of randomly placed pencil beams (PBs), reduces optimization time and improves plan quality for multi-criteria optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy, compared with traditional modes in which PBs are distributed over a regular grid. Resampling consisted of repeatedly performing: (1) random selection of candidate PBs from a very fine grid, (2) inverse multi-criteria optimization, and (3) exclusion of low-weight PBs. The newly selected candidate PBs were added to the PBs in the existing solution, causing the solution to improve with each iteration. Resampling and traditional regular grid planning were implemented into our in-house developed multi-criteria treatment planning system ‘Erasmus iCycle’. The system optimizes objectives successively according to their priorities as defined in the so-called ‘wish-list’. For five head-and-neck cancer patients and two PB widths (3 and 6 mm sigma at 230 MeV), treatment plans were generated using: (1) resampling, (2) anisotropic regular grids and (3) isotropic regular grids, while using varying sample sizes (resampling) or grid spacings (regular grid). We assessed differences in optimization time (for comparable plan quality) and in plan quality parameters (for comparable optimization time). Resampling reduced optimization time by a factor of 2.8 and 5.6 on average (7.8 and 17.0 at maximum) compared with the use of anisotropic and isotropic grids, respectively. Doses to organs-at-risk were generally reduced when using resampling, with median dose reductions ranging from 0.0 to 3.0 Gy (maximum: 14.3 Gy, relative: 0%–42%) compared with anisotropic grids and from −0.3 to 2.6 Gy (maximum: 11.4 Gy, relative: −4%–19%) compared with isotropic grids. Resampling was especially effective when using thin PBs (3 mm sigma). Resampling plans contained on average fewer PBs, energy layers and protons than anisotropic grid plans and more energy layers and protons than isotropic grid plans. In conclusion, resampling resulted in improved plan quality and in considerable optimization time reduction compared with traditional regular grid planning.