Morad El Kafhali , Marziyeh Tahmasbi , Abdenbi El Moutaoukkil , Mohammed Talbi , Zouheir Amraoui , M'hamed El Mansouri , Mohammed Khalis
{"title":"Dose optimization in external radiotherapy using matRad: Parametric analysis with TG-119 phantoms and a thoracic case","authors":"Morad El Kafhali , Marziyeh Tahmasbi , Abdenbi El Moutaoukkil , Mohammed Talbi , Zouheir Amraoui , M'hamed El Mansouri , Mohammed Khalis","doi":"10.1016/j.radphyschem.2025.113266","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objectives</h3><div>This study assessed the impact of treatment planning parameters on dose distribution optimization using matRad, a MATLAB-based inverse treatment planning toolkit developed at the German Cancer Research Center, in compliance with American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 119 (AAPM TG-119) guidelines. The aim was to evaluate how variations in beam number, penalty values, cost function, and isocenter positioning affect plan quality and optimization efficiency.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>Treatment planning was performed with matRad (version 3.1.0) on AAPM TG-119 phantoms (C-shape, mock prostate, head/neck) and a real thoracic tumor case. Dose distributions were analyzed for different beam configurations, penalty weight settings, cost functions (equivalent uniform dose (EUD)-based vs. dose-volume (DV)-based optimization), and isocenter placement strategies (auto-centering vs. manual shifts).</div></div><div><h3>Result</h3><div>Increasing beam number improved dose homogeneity and conformity but showed a nonlinear trend, with excessive beams leading to computational redundancy. Higher penalty values improved target dose uniformity but increased optimization iterations, reflecting a trade-off between coverage and computational complexity. EUD-based optimization converged faster than DV-based, while the latter provided better OAR sparing. Auto-isocenter positioning significantly improved target dose coverage in thoracic tumor planning, while a +20 mm manual shift resulted in suboptimal target coverage (D<sub>95 %</sub> = 116.1 cGy vs. 5164.8 cGy with auto-centering) and increased lung dose exposure.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Careful adjustment of planning parameters is essential to balance dose conformity, computational efficiency, and clinical feasibility. These results validate matRad as a research and educational tool, demonstrating its potential for treatment optimization, planning strategy testing, and algorithm development.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":20861,"journal":{"name":"Radiation Physics and Chemistry","volume":"239 ","pages":"Article 113266"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiation Physics and Chemistry","FirstCategoryId":"92","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969806X25007583","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"物理与天体物理","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and objectives
This study assessed the impact of treatment planning parameters on dose distribution optimization using matRad, a MATLAB-based inverse treatment planning toolkit developed at the German Cancer Research Center, in compliance with American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 119 (AAPM TG-119) guidelines. The aim was to evaluate how variations in beam number, penalty values, cost function, and isocenter positioning affect plan quality and optimization efficiency.
Method
Treatment planning was performed with matRad (version 3.1.0) on AAPM TG-119 phantoms (C-shape, mock prostate, head/neck) and a real thoracic tumor case. Dose distributions were analyzed for different beam configurations, penalty weight settings, cost functions (equivalent uniform dose (EUD)-based vs. dose-volume (DV)-based optimization), and isocenter placement strategies (auto-centering vs. manual shifts).
Result
Increasing beam number improved dose homogeneity and conformity but showed a nonlinear trend, with excessive beams leading to computational redundancy. Higher penalty values improved target dose uniformity but increased optimization iterations, reflecting a trade-off between coverage and computational complexity. EUD-based optimization converged faster than DV-based, while the latter provided better OAR sparing. Auto-isocenter positioning significantly improved target dose coverage in thoracic tumor planning, while a +20 mm manual shift resulted in suboptimal target coverage (D95 % = 116.1 cGy vs. 5164.8 cGy with auto-centering) and increased lung dose exposure.
Conclusion
Careful adjustment of planning parameters is essential to balance dose conformity, computational efficiency, and clinical feasibility. These results validate matRad as a research and educational tool, demonstrating its potential for treatment optimization, planning strategy testing, and algorithm development.
期刊介绍:
Radiation Physics and Chemistry is a multidisciplinary journal that provides a medium for publication of substantial and original papers, reviews, and short communications which focus on research and developments involving ionizing radiation in radiation physics, radiation chemistry and radiation processing.
The journal aims to publish papers with significance to an international audience, containing substantial novelty and scientific impact. The Editors reserve the rights to reject, with or without external review, papers that do not meet these criteria. This could include papers that are very similar to previous publications, only with changed target substrates, employed materials, analyzed sites and experimental methods, report results without presenting new insights and/or hypothesis testing, or do not focus on the radiation effects.