Journal of Medical Physics
 Home | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Subscription | Login  The official journal of AMPI, IOMP and AFOMP      
 Users online: 297  Home  EMail this page Print this page Decrease font size Default font size Increase font size 

Year : 2009  |  Volume : 34  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 129-132

Optimization of beam angles for intensity modulated radiation therapy treatment planning using genetic algorithm on a distributed computing platform

Department of Radiation Medicine, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Elm & Carlton Sts, Buffalo NY 14263, USA

Date of Submission30-Dec-2008
Date of Decision13-Mar-2009
Date of Acceptance21-Apr-2009
Date of Web Publication3-Aug-2009

Correspondence Address:
Daryl P Nazareth
Elm & Carlton Sts. Buffalo NY 14263
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0971-6203.54845

Rights and Permissions



Planning intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment involves selection of several angle parameters as well as specification of structures and constraints employed in the optimization process. Including these parameters in the combinatorial search space vastly increases the computational burden, and therefore the parameter selection is normally performed manually by a clinician, based on clinical experience. We have investigated the use of a genetic algorithm (GA) and distributed-computing platform to optimize the gantry angle parameters and provide insight into additional structures, which may be necessary, in the dose optimization process to produce optimal IMRT treatment plans. For an IMRT prostate patient, we produced the first generation of 40 samples, each of five gantry angles, by selecting from a uniform random distribution, subject to certain adjacency and opposition constraints. Dose optimization was performed by distributing the 40-plan workload over several machines running a commercial treatment planning system. A score was assigned to each resulting plan, based on how well it satisfied clinically-relevant constraints. The second generation of 40 samples was produced by combining the highest-scoring samples using techniques of crossover and mutation. The process was repeated until the sixth generation, and the results compared with a clinical (equally-spaced) gantry angle configuration. In the sixth generation, 34 of the 40 GA samples achieved better scores than the clinical plan, with the best plan showing an improvement of 84%. Moreover, the resulting configuration of beam angles tended to cluster toward the patient's sides, indicating where the inclusion of additional structures in the dose optimization process may avoid dose hot spots. Additional parameter selection in IMRT leads to a large-scale computational problem. We have demonstrated that the GA combined with a distributed-computing platform can be applied to optimize gantry angle selection within a reasonable amount of time.

Keywords: Intensity modulated radiation therapy, distributed computing, genetic algorithm, optimization

How to cite this article:
Nazareth DP, Brunner S, Jones MD, Malhotra HK, Bakhtiari M. Optimization of beam angles for intensity modulated radiation therapy treatment planning using genetic algorithm on a distributed computing platform. J Med Phys 2009;34:129-32

How to cite this URL:
Nazareth DP, Brunner S, Jones MD, Malhotra HK, Bakhtiari M. Optimization of beam angles for intensity modulated radiation therapy treatment planning using genetic algorithm on a distributed computing platform. J Med Phys [serial online] 2009 [cited 2022 Jan 18];34:129-32. Available from:

   Introduction Top

Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) is a complex technology designed to deliver precisely-modulated and conformal radiation dose to a target. IMRT is employed clinically for several treatment sites, including the prostate, the head and neck region, and the brain.

IMRT planning requires the solution to the beam-angle selection (BAS) problem, [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8] which involves the selection of 5-10 angles from 360 possible gantry angles, subject to certain spacing and opposition constraints. This type of optimization problem is termed an integer programming (IP) problem, and involves a large number of binary variables. For example, in selecting 5-10 angles out of a set of 360, there are approximately 9 x 10 19 possible candidates. In addition, in many clinics, the rotation angles of the treatment couch are also considered, further increasing the number of variables and possible solutions. Since no commercial software package exists which solves the BAS problem, clinicians generally select the gantry and couch angles manually based on clinical experience.

A second IMRT sub-problem is that of dose optimization (DO). [9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19] This problem involves optimizing beamlet weights in order to define an intensity map for each radiation field. The constraints involved are usually expressed as dose-volume histogram (DVH) constraints on targets and organs at risk. As noted above, no existing commercial technique attempts to solve the BAS and DO problems simultaneously. Other investigators have employed genetic algorithm approaches [20],[21] to the BAS problem, but have not coupled it with a standard commercial dose optimization routine. As described below, we use the GA as an "outer loop" of our complete optimization technique.

The major impediment to solving the BAS, simultaneously with standard IMRT optimization, is the prohibitive size of the solution search space. However, the advent of high-performance computing and computer clusters has now made such attempts feasible. Our work involves the development of distributed-computing tools to solve simultaneously the BAS and DO problems. These tools would represent significant improvement in current clinical IMRT treatment-planning implementation.

   Methods Top

B1. Genetic Algorithm

Genetic algorithm [22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27] (GA) is an adaptive heuristic search technique based on the biological principles of evolution and natural selection. It employs an initial random population which effectively samples the search space globally, along with a propagation technique to concentrate the search effort in promising regions. In this work, we will employ the GA to guide the search for optimal beam angles while simultaneously generating IMRT treatment plans.

The GA approach includes four steps: (1) producing the first generation of beam-angle sample sets, (2) determining the "most fit" samples by means of a scoring function (3) combining the most promising samples using a crossover technique (4) applying a mutation scheme to a selection of the new generation of samples.

The search space consists of all candidate sets of gantry beam angles, subject to the following constraints: angles which differ by less than 30° are not permitted, and angles within 30° of opposition are not permitted. These are typical constraints employed in clinical IMRT treatment planning. The number of beams will be selected by the user, based on clinical considerations, although further development in this work would permit this parameter to be included in the search. As an example, we consider the treatment plan for a prostate patient in which the number of beams, N is equal to five. Producing the initial population of k samples is accomplished by random number generation.

For each of the k samples, an IMRT treatment plan is generated using the Eclipse software (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA), with clinically-relevant DVH constraints. Currently, each plan is generated manually, as in standard clinical treatment planning; an automated method using a distributed-computing approach is described in the ''Discussion and Conclusions'' section. Each plan then receives a score according to how well it satisfies the constraints; this enables the samples to be ranked. The best sample is cloned or copied, unchanged, to the next generation. The remaining k-1 positions of the next generation are assigned to offspring of the best samples using the following method. For each pair of samples in the current generation, the average score is calculated. The best k-1 pairs are placed into the mating pool . For each pair in this pool, a random binary crossover mask is generated and used to determine the beams angles of that pair's offspring. Each offspring then has a probability p of undergoing mutation , or alteration of one randomly-selected beam to a new random value.

The process is repeated with the new generation of k samples. After a number of generations, s , have been produced, the process is halted, and the sample with the best score is considered the solution to the BAS problem. In practice, the values of k , p , and s are selected based on the time and computational resources available, as discussed below. The GA process is illustrated in [Figure 1].


We analyzed an IMRT prostate case recently treated in our facility. The beam angles employed in the actual treatment were 45°, 105°, 180°, 255°, 315°. The DVH constraints for this case were those typically employed in our clinic. We used the GA algorithm described in Section A to produce each generation of beam-angle samples. The plans were generated with the Eclipse software running on four separate machines.

After each IMRT plan was generated, it was normalized so that 95% of the PTV received the prescription dose of 81Gy, and was then evaluated using the following scoring function:

Where A j was the actual percentage volume receiving the constraint dose, C j was the percentage volume specified to receive the constraint dose, and w i was the relative weight assigned to the organ at risk (OAR). The sum over i included the bladder and rectum, and the sum over j included the constraints for each OAR. For this preliminary study, we used weights for the bladder and rectum of 1 and 2, respectively. Clearly, a lower score indicates a better treatment plan. The score for the clinical plan was -121.

We produced six generations of the GA, and in each case recorded the number of plans better than the clinical plan. We produced DVH figures to compare the best plan with the clinical plan.

   Results Top

In [Figure 2], we present the DVH's for the prostate, bladder, and rectum for the clinical and best GA plans. Clearly, the GA plan provides better sparing of the critical structures. [Figure 3] presents, for each generation of samples, the average and best plan scores.

   Discussion and Conclusions Top

The GA is an effective method of searching the space of gantry angles. We have shown that it can produce IMRT prostate plans with significantly better fitness scores than typical clinical plans. The GA implementation for the BAS-DO problem gains power when IMRT plans corresponding to the beam-angle samples, for each iteration (see B1), are generated simultaneously. This requires distributing the samples over multiple IMRT workstations, or computing nodes , which is the subject of ongoing investigations. We have formed a collaboration with faculty members at the Center for Computational Research (CCR). [28],[29] Access to the vast computational resources of the CCR will permit us to implement the GA algorithm to run simultaneously on k machines, with k in the range of 25-100 or more. The result is that the completion of each GA generation will require only approximately 30 minutes. This would enable 5-10 generations ( s =5-10) in the time currently required to produce one complete IMRT treatment plan.

   References Top

1.Bortfeld T, Schlegel W. Optimization of beam orientations in radiation therapy: Some theoretical considerations. Phys Med Biol 1993;38:291-304.  Back to cited text no. 1    
2.Das SK, Marks LB. Selection of coplanar or noncoplanar beams using three-dimensional optimization based on maximum beam separation and minimized nontarget irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997;38:643-55.  Back to cited text no. 2    
3.Djajaputra D, Wu Q, Wu Y, Mohan R. Algorithm and performance of a clinical IMRT beam-angle optimization system. Phys Med Biol 2003;48:3191-212.  Back to cited text no. 3    
4.Pugachev A, Li JG, Boyer AL, Hancock SL, Le QT, Donaldson SS, et al. Role of beam orientation optimization in intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;50:551-60.  Back to cited text no. 4    
5.Rowbottom CG, Nutting CM, Webb S. Beam-orientation optimization of intensity-modulated radiotherapy: clinical application to parotid gland tumours. Radiother Oncol 2001;59:169-77.  Back to cited text no. 5    
6.Sailer SL, Rosenman JG, Symon JR, Cullip TJ, Chaney EL. The tetrad and hexad: Maximum beam separation as a starting point for noncoplanar 3D treatment planning: prostate cancer as a test case. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1994;30:439-46.  Back to cited text no. 6    
7.Sφderstrφm S, Brahme A. Which is the most suitable number of photon beam portals in coplanar radiation therapy? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995;33:151-9.  Back to cited text no. 7    
8.D'Souza WD, Zhang HH, Nazareth DP, Shi L, Meyer RR. A nested partitions framework for beam angle optimization in intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Phys Med Biol 2008;53:3293-307.   Back to cited text no. 8    
9.Chang SX, Cullip TJ, Rosenman JG, Halvorsen PH, Tepper JE. Dose optimization via index-dose gradient minimization. Med Phys 2002;29:1130-46.  Back to cited text no. 9    
10.Ezzell GA. Genetic and geometric optimization of three-dimensional radiation therapy treatment planning. Med Phys 1996;23:293-305.  Back to cited text no. 10    
11.Langer M, Morrill S, Brown R, Lee O, Lane R. A comparison of mixed integer programming and fast simulated annealing for optimizing beam weights in radiation therapy. Med Phys 1996;23:957-64.  Back to cited text no. 11    
12.Lee EK, Fox T, Crocker I. Optimization of radiosurgery treatment planning via mixed integer programming. Med Phys 2000;27:995-1004.  Back to cited text no. 12    
13.Llacer J. Inverse radiation treatment planning using the Dynamically Penalized Likelihood method. Med Phys 1997;24:1751-64.  Back to cited text no. 13    
14.Mageras GS, Mohan R. Application of fast simulated annealing to optimization of conformal radiation treatments. Med Phys 1993;20:639-47.  Back to cited text no. 14    
15.Morrill SM, Lam KS, Lane RG, Langer M, Rosen II. Very fast simulated reannealing in radiation therapy treatment plan optimization. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995;31:179-88.  Back to cited text no. 15    
16.Rosen II, Lane RG, Morrill SM, Belli JA. Treatment plan optimization using linear programming. Med Phys 1991;18:141-52.  Back to cited text no. 16    
17.Spirou SV, Chui CS. A gradient inverse planning algorithm with dose-volume constraints. Med Phys 1998;25:321-33.  Back to cited text no. 17    
18.Wu X, Zhu Y. A mixed-encoding genetic algorithm with beam constraint for conformal radiotherapy treatment planning. Med Phys 2000;27:2508-16.  Back to cited text no. 18    
19.Langer M, Thai V, Papiez L. Improved leaf sequencing reduces segments or monitor units needed to deliver IMRT using multileaf collimators. Med Phys 2001;28:2450-8.  Back to cited text no. 19    
20.Hou Q, Wang J, Chen Y, Galvin JM. "Beam Orientation Optimization for IMRT by a Hybrid Method of the Genetic Algorithm and the Simulated Dynamics." Med Phys 2003;30:2360.  Back to cited text no. 20    
21.Lei J, Li Y. "An Approaching Genetic Algorithm for Automatic Beam Angle Selection in IMRT Planning." Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2009;93:257-65.   Back to cited text no. 21    
22.Herrera F., Lozano, M.. Gradual distributed real-coded genetic algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 2000;4:43-63.  Back to cited text no. 22    
23.Voigt H-M, Anheyer T. Modal mutations in evolutionary algorithms . Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation 1994;1:88-92.  Back to cited text no. 23    
24.Chalermdamrichai V. A hybrid computer-intelligent, user-interactive, process plan optimizer for four-axis CNC turning centers. Industrial Engineering. Vol PhD. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison; 1999.  Back to cited text no. 24    
25.L. Shi SO, and N. Sun. Parallel algorithm for the traveling salesman problem. Computer and Operations Research 1999;26:371-394.  Back to cited text no. 25    
26.L. Shi SOaQC. A new optimization framework for product design. Management Science 2001;47:1681-92.  Back to cited text no. 26    
27.Men LSaS. Optimal buffer allocation in production lines. IIE Transactions 2003;35:1-10.  Back to cited text no. 27    
28.M.D. Jones RY, C.P. Bhole. Hybrid MPI-OpenMP programming for parallel OSEM PET reconstruction. IEEE Transactions on nuclear science 2006;53:2752-8.  Back to cited text no. 28    
29.Yao MDJaR. Parallel programming for OSEM reconstruction with MPT, OpenMP, and hybrid MPI-OpenMP. IEEE Nuclear Science Syposium. Vol 5; 2004. p. 3036-42.  Back to cited text no. 29    


  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]

This article has been cited by
1 An automated bi-level optimization approach for IMRT
P. Carrasqueira, M. J. Alves, J. M. Dias, H. Rocha, T. Ventura, B. C. Ferreira, M. C. Lopes
International Transactions in Operational Research. 2021;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Integral dose investigation of non-coplanar treatment beam geometries in radiotherapy
Dan Nguyen,Peng Dong,Troy Long,Dan Ruan,Daniel A. Low,Edwin Romeijn,Ke Sheng
Medical Physics. 2014; 41(1): 011905
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 A unified mixed-integer programming model for simultaneous fluence weight and aperture optimization in VMAT, Tomotherapy, and Cyberknife
Kerem Akartunali,Vicky Mak-Hau,Thu Tran
Computers & Operations Research. 2014;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 Beam orientation in stereotactic radiosurgery using an artificial neural network
Agnieszka Skrobala,Julian Malicki
Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2014; 111(2): 296
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
5 A surrogate-based metaheuristic global search method for beam angle selection in radiation treatment planning
Zhang, H.H. and Gao, S. and Chen, W. and Shi, L. and DæSouza, W.D. and Meyer, R.R.
Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2013; 58(6): 1933-1946
6 Comparison of beam angle selection strategies for intracranial IMRT
Bangert, M. and Ziegenhein, P. and Oelfke, U.
Medical Physics. 2013; 40(1)
7 A surrogate-based metaheuristic global search method for beam angle selection in radiation treatment planning
H H Zhang,S Gao,W Chen,L Shi,W D D’Souza,R R Meyer
Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2013; 58(6): 1933
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
8 Introducing multiple treatment plan-based comparison to investigate the performance of gantry angle optimisation (GAO) in IMRT for head and neck cancer
Maria Thor, Hunor Benedek, Tommy Knöös, Per Engström, Claus F. Behrens, Anna Karlsson Hauer, David Sjöström, Crister Ceberg
Acta Oncologica. 2012; : 1
[VIEW] | [DOI]
9 Uncertainty incorporated beam angle optimization for IMPT treatment planning
Wenhua Cao,Gino J. Lim,Andrew Lee,Yupeng Li,Wei Liu,X. Ronald Zhu,Xiaodong Zhang
Medical Physics. 2012; 39(8): 5248
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
10 Characterizing the combinatorial beam angle selection problem
Bangert, M. and Ziegenhein, P. and Oelfke, U.
Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2012; 57(20): 6707-6723
11 Uncertainty incorporated beam angle optimization for IMPT treatment planning
Cao, W. and Lim, G.J. and Lee, A. and Li, Y. and Liu, W. and Ronald Zhu, X. and Zhang, X.
Medical Physics. 2012; 39(8): 5248-5256
12 Characterizing the combinatorial beam angle selection problem
Mark Bangert,Peter Ziegenhein,Uwe Oelfke
Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2012; 57(20): 6707
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
13 A two-phase method for selecting IMRT treatment beam angles: Branch-and-Prune and local neighborhood search
Gino J. Lim, Wenhua Cao
European Journal of Operational Research. 2011;
[VIEW] | [DOI]
14 Computational enhancements to fluence map optimization for total marrow irradiation using IMRT
D.M. Aleman, V.V. Mišić, M.B. Sharpe
Computers & Operations Research. 2011;
[VIEW] | [DOI]
15 A self-adaptive case-based reasoning system for dose planning in prostate cancer radiotherapy
Nishikant Mishra, Sanja Petrovic, Santhanam Sundar
Medical Physics. 2011; 38(12): 6528
[VIEW] | [DOI]
16 An algorithm for fast beam angle selection in intensity modulated radiotherapy
R. Vaitheeswaran, V. K. Sathiya Narayanan, Janhavi R. Bhangle, Amit Nirhali, Namitha Kumar, Sumit Basu, Vikram Maiya
Medical Physics. 2010; 37(12): 6443
[VIEW] | [DOI]


Print this article  Email this article
Previous article Next article


   Next article
   Previous article 
   Table of Contents
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Article in PDF (863 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

    Discussion and C...
    Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded338    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 16    

Recommend this journal