Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Multi-Criteria Inverse Robustness in Radiotherapy Planning Using Semidefinite Programming

Jan Schröeder, Yair Censor, Philipp Süss, Karl-Heinz Küfer

TL;DR

This work reframes radiotherapy planning as a multi-criteria optimization under interval uncertainty, introducing inverse robustness to balance robustness against other objectives. By modeling uncertainty with interval matrices and relaxing the resulting QCQP to a convex SDP, it enables efficient exploration of robust Pareto fronts, with a reconstruction method to recover QCQP-feasible solutions. Clustering reduces problem size, making large-scale problems tractable, and a new Pareto-front navigation approach provides real-time feedback to decision-makers. The method is demonstrated on a liver-case, showing competitive robustness-quality trade-offs compared with established approaches and offering a practical interactive tool for clinicians.

Abstract

Radiotherapy planning naturally leads to a multi-criteria optimization problem which is subject to different sources of uncertainty. In order to find the desired treatment plan, a decision maker must balance these objectives as well as the level of robustness towards uncertainty against each other. This paper showcases a quantitative approach to do so, which combines the theoretical model with the ability to deal with practical challenges. To this end, the uncertainty, which can be expressed via the so-called dose-influence matrix, is modelled using interval matrices. We use inverse robustness to introduce an additional objective, which aims to maximize the volume of the uncertainty set. A multi-criteria approach allows to handle the uncertainty while keeping appropriate values of the other objective functions. We solve the resulting quadratically constrained quadratic optimization problem (QCQP) by first relaxing it to a convex semidefinite problem (SDP) and then reconstructing optimal solutions of the QCQP from solutions of the SDP.

Multi-Criteria Inverse Robustness in Radiotherapy Planning Using Semidefinite Programming

TL;DR

This work reframes radiotherapy planning as a multi-criteria optimization under interval uncertainty, introducing inverse robustness to balance robustness against other objectives. By modeling uncertainty with interval matrices and relaxing the resulting QCQP to a convex SDP, it enables efficient exploration of robust Pareto fronts, with a reconstruction method to recover QCQP-feasible solutions. Clustering reduces problem size, making large-scale problems tractable, and a new Pareto-front navigation approach provides real-time feedback to decision-makers. The method is demonstrated on a liver-case, showing competitive robustness-quality trade-offs compared with established approaches and offering a practical interactive tool for clinicians.

Abstract

Radiotherapy planning naturally leads to a multi-criteria optimization problem which is subject to different sources of uncertainty. In order to find the desired treatment plan, a decision maker must balance these objectives as well as the level of robustness towards uncertainty against each other. This paper showcases a quantitative approach to do so, which combines the theoretical model with the ability to deal with practical challenges. To this end, the uncertainty, which can be expressed via the so-called dose-influence matrix, is modelled using interval matrices. We use inverse robustness to introduce an additional objective, which aims to maximize the volume of the uncertainty set. A multi-criteria approach allows to handle the uncertainty while keeping appropriate values of the other objective functions. We solve the resulting quadratically constrained quadratic optimization problem (QCQP) by first relaxing it to a convex semidefinite problem (SDP) and then reconstructing optimal solutions of the QCQP from solutions of the SDP.
Paper Structure (13 sections, 8 theorems, 42 equations, 3 figures, 3 tables)

This paper contains 13 sections, 8 theorems, 42 equations, 3 figures, 3 tables.

Key Result

Theorem 2.5

If $\boldsymbol{A}x\leq\boldsymbol{b}$ is strongly solvable then it has a strong solution.

Figures (3)

  • Figure 1: Visualization of the reconstruction method: The blue area indicates the image of the feasible set of the QCQP. Note that all components of $C^Tx$ have been combined into a single coordinate axis for this visualization. The green curve represents the Pareto-front of the SDP-relaxation with a Pareto-optimal point (red) on it. The blue point indicates its projection along the dashed line onto the QCQP and is, under the assumptions of Theorem \ref{['thmoptstr']}, again optimal.
  • Figure 2: Pareto-front of the relaxed IMRT problem, visualized in Fraunhofer ITWMs Pareto navigation tool. The matrix on the left showcases the projection of all Pareto-points onto the 2D-plane with only the indicated functions. The lightblue crosses represent the Pareto-points. On the right, the values of the currently navigated point (red) of the SDP are shown. Further, its projection onto the QCQP (blue) is displayed. Its coordinates are $(1.034, -45.06, -0.862)$. A particular Pareto-point of the QCQP is given by $(1.0339, -45.0665, -0.84)$, making the point $\epsilon$-optimal for $\epsilon =0.022$.
  • Figure 3: DVHs at different Pareto-points of the QCQP. On the left are the DVHs for the clustered problems, on the right for the unclustered problem with the same intensity vector $x$. From Figure \ref{['fig:mydvhsr=0.08']} to \ref{['fig:mydvhsr=0.4']} we see a slight shift away from the upper bound of $50Gy$ to make some "breathing room" for the uncertainties to unfold. Figures \ref{['fig:mydvhsr=0.4']} and \ref{['fig:mydvhsr=0.7']} are not really comparable, because they represent very different Pareto-points, Figure \ref{['fig:mydvhsr=0.4']} putting much more emphasis on high tumor doses. From Figure \ref{['fig:mydvhsr=0.7']} to \ref{['fig:mydvhsr=1']}, note how with increasing levels of robustness the dose on the target becomes more homogenous (the curves representing the tumor doses are less spread in \ref{['fig:mydvhsr=1']} compared to \ref{['fig:mydvhsr=0.7']}).

Theorems & Definitions (12)

  • Definition 2.1: ehrgott
  • Definition 2.2: liu
  • Definition 2.3: rohn
  • Definition 2.4: rohn
  • Theorem 2.5: rohn
  • Theorem 2.6: rohn
  • Theorem 2.7: vandenberghe
  • Theorem 3.1: Efficiency of the projected point, schroeder
  • Theorem 3.2: Weak $\epsilon$-efficiency of the projected point, schroeder
  • Theorem 3.3: schroeder
  • ...and 2 more