Radiotherapy Treatment Design and Linear Programming

  • Allen Holder
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 70)


Intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment (IMRT) design is the process of choosing how beams of radiation will travel through a cancer patient to treat the disease, and although optimization techniques have been suggested since the 1960s, they are still not widely used. Instead, the vast majority of treatment plans are designed by clinicians through trial-and-error. Modern treatment facilities have the technology to treat patients with extremely complicated plans, and designing plans that take full advantage of the technology is tedious. The increased technology found in modern treatment facilities makes the use of optimization paramount in the design of successful treatment plans. The goals of this work are to 1) present a concise description of the linear models that are under current investigation, 2) develop the analysis certificates that these models allow, and 3) suggest future research avenues.

Key words

Mathematical programming Intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Censor, Y. (1991). Mathematical aspects of radiation therapy treatment planning: Continuous inversion versus full discretization and optimization versus feasibility. In Borgers, C. and F. Natterer, Eds., Computational Radiology and Imaging: Therapy and Diagnostic. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 101–112.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Cormack, A. and E. Quinto (1990). The mathematics and physics of radiation dose planning using x-rays. Contemporary Mathematics, 113, 41–55.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Bartolozzi, F., et al. (2000). Operational research techniques in medical treatment and diagnosis. A review. European Journal of Operations Research, 121, 435–466.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Censor, Y., M. Altschuler, and W. Powlis (1988). A computational solution of the inverse problem in radiation-therapy treatment planning. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 25, 57–87.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Powlis, W., M. Altschuler, Y. Censor, and E. Buhle (1989). Semiautomatic radiotherapy treatment planning with a mathematical model to satisfy treatment goals. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 16, 271–276.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Goitein, M. and A. Niemierko (1988). Biologically based models for scoring treatment plans. Scandinavian Symposium on Future Directions of Computer-Aided Radiotherapy.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Raphael, C. (1992). Mathematical modeling of objectives in radiation therapy treatment planning. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 37, 1293–1311.CrossRefADSPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Withers, H., J. Taylor, and B. Maciejewski (1987). Treatment volume and tissue tolerance. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 14, 751–759.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Wolbarst, A. (1984). Optimization of radiation therapy II: The critical-voxel model. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 10, 741–745.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Ferris, M. and M. Voellker (2002). Neuro-dynamic programming for radiation treatment planning. Technical Report NA-02/06, Numerical Analysis Group, Computing Laboratory, Oxford University.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Boland, N., H. Hamacher, and F. Lenzen (2002). Minimizing beam-on time in cancer radiation treatment using multileaf collimators. Technical Report KLUEDO: 2002-02-10, Universittsbibliothek Kaiserslautern.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Holder, A. (2003). Designing radiotherapy plans with elastic constraints and interior point methods. Health Care Management Science, 6, 5–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Holder, A. (2001). Partitioning multiple objective solutions with applications in radiotherapy design. Technical Report 54, Department of Mathematics, Trinity University, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Bahr, G.K., J.G. Kereiakes, H. Horwitz, R. Finney, J. Galvin, and K. Goode (1968). The method of linear programming applied to radiation treatment planning. Radiology, 91, 686–693.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Hodes, L. (1974). Semiautomatic optimization of external beam radiation treatment planning. Radiology, 110, 191–196.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Langer, M. (1987). Optimization of beam weights underdose-volume restrictions. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 13, 1255–1260.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Langer, M., R. Brown, M. Urie, J. Leong, M. Stracher, and J. Shapiro (1990). Large scale optimization of beam weights under dose-volume restrictions. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 18, 887–893.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Legras, J., B. Legras, and J. Lambert (1982). Software for linear and non-linear optimization in external radiotherapy. Computer Programs in Biomedicine, 15, 233–242.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Lodwick, W., S. McCourt, F. Newman, and S. Humphries (1998). Optimization methods for radiation therapy plans. In Borgers, C. and F. Natterer, Eds., Computational, Radiology and Imaging: Therapy and Diagnosis. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Morrill, S., I. Rosen, R. Lane, and J. Belli (1990). The influence of dose constraint point placement on optimized radiation therapy treatment planning. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 19, 129–141.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Rosen, I., R. Lane, S. Morrill, and J. Belli (1991). Treatment plan optimization using linear programming. Medical Physics, 18, 141–152.CrossRefADSPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Sonderman, D. and P. Abrahamson (1985). Radiotherapy treatment design using mathematical programming models. Operations Research, 33, 705–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Morrill, S., R. Lane, G. Jacobson, and I. Rosen (1991).Treatment planning optimization using constrained simulated annealing. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 36, 1341–1361.CrossRefADSPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Chinneck, J. (1995). An elective polynomial-time heuristic for the minimum-cardinality set-covering problem. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 17, 127–144.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Chinneck, J. (1997). Finding a useful subset of constraints for analysis in an infeasible linear program. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 9, 164–174.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Greenberg, H. (1993). How to analyze results of linear programs, part 3:Infeasibility diagnosis. Interfaces, 23, 120–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Greenberg, H. (1996). Consistency, redundancy and implied equalities in linear systems. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 17, 37–83.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    Berman, A. and R. Plemmons (1979). Nonnegative Matrices in the Mathematical Sciences. Academic Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Shepard, D., M. Ferris, G. Olivera, and T. Mackie (1999). Optimizing the delivery of radiation therapy to cancer patients. SIAM Review, 41, 721–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    Roos, C., T. Terlaky, and J.-P. Vial (1997). Theory and Algorithms for Linear Optimization: An Interior Point Approach. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allen Holder
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsTrinity UniversitySan Antonio

Personalised recommendations