WO2000015299A1 - Falcon: automated optimization method for arbitrary assessment criteria - Google Patents

Falcon: automated optimization method for arbitrary assessment criteria

Info

Publication number
WO2000015299A1
WO2000015299A1 PCT/US1999/020785 US9920785W WO0015299A1 WO 2000015299 A1 WO2000015299 A1 WO 2000015299A1 US 9920785 W US9920785 W US 9920785W WO 0015299 A1 WO0015299 A1 WO 0015299A1
Authority
WO
WIPO (PCT)
Prior art keywords
dose
arrays
particle
energy
beamlet
Prior art date
Application number
PCT/US1999/020785
Other languages
French (fr)
Inventor
Tser-Yuan Yang
Edward I. Moses
Christine Hartmann-Siantar
Original Assignee
The Regents Of The University Of California
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by The Regents Of The University Of California filed Critical The Regents Of The University Of California
Priority to JP2000569883A priority Critical patent/JP2003534823A/en
Priority to EP99969041A priority patent/EP1119395A1/en
Priority to AU60331/99A priority patent/AU6033199A/en
Priority to CA002343210A priority patent/CA2343210C/en
Publication of WO2000015299A1 publication Critical patent/WO2000015299A1/en

Links

Classifications

    • AHUMAN NECESSITIES
    • A61MEDICAL OR VETERINARY SCIENCE; HYGIENE
    • A61NELECTROTHERAPY; MAGNETOTHERAPY; RADIATION THERAPY; ULTRASOUND THERAPY
    • A61N5/00Radiation therapy
    • A61N5/10X-ray therapy; Gamma-ray therapy; Particle-irradiation therapy
    • A61N5/103Treatment planning systems
    • A61N5/1031Treatment planning systems using a specific method of dose optimization
    • AHUMAN NECESSITIES
    • A61MEDICAL OR VETERINARY SCIENCE; HYGIENE
    • A61NELECTROTHERAPY; MAGNETOTHERAPY; RADIATION THERAPY; ULTRASOUND THERAPY
    • A61N5/00Radiation therapy
    • A61N5/10X-ray therapy; Gamma-ray therapy; Particle-irradiation therapy
    • A61N5/103Treatment planning systems
    • A61N5/1031Treatment planning systems using a specific method of dose optimization
    • A61N2005/1034Monte Carlo type methods; particle tracking
    • AHUMAN NECESSITIES
    • A61MEDICAL OR VETERINARY SCIENCE; HYGIENE
    • A61NELECTROTHERAPY; MAGNETOTHERAPY; RADIATION THERAPY; ULTRASOUND THERAPY
    • A61N5/00Radiation therapy
    • A61N5/10X-ray therapy; Gamma-ray therapy; Particle-irradiation therapy
    • A61N5/1042X-ray therapy; Gamma-ray therapy; Particle-irradiation therapy with spatial modulation of the radiation beam within the treatment head

Definitions

  • the present invention relates to systems and methods for obtaining optimized radiation dose deposition, and more particularly for automatically generating individually optimized treatment strategies for multiple treatment goals on a single patient, multiple patients or treatment sites.
  • the goal of radiation therapy is to deliver a high, curative dose to a tumor, while minimizing the dose to normal tissues and limiting the dose in critical healthy structures to their radiation dose tolerance.
  • CT computed tomography
  • MRI magnetic resonance imaging
  • New methods for specifically identifying the location of tumors and cancerous tissue include magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) and proton emission spectroscopy (PET).
  • IMRT intensity modulated radiation therapy
  • Two critical links required for accurate delivery of the optimal conformal therapy plan are the ability to accurately predict the dose distribution in the patient (given a dose-delivery configuration), and the ability to optimize the treatment plan or dose delivery configuration to yield the most advantageous dose distribution for the patient.
  • the PEREGRINE dose calculation system developed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, uses Monte Carlo transport calculations to provide highly accurate three-dimensional dose calculation for radiation therapy.
  • the FALCON automated planning system described here, uses these accurate dose calculations to identify and prescribe the treatment plan that best meets the planners treatment objectives.
  • FALCON enables identification of the most optimized treatment configuration for multiple treatment goals simultaneously. More generally the methods described here will provide the optimized configuration with accuracy limited by the accuracy of the dose calculation algorithm and can be used for highly accurate algorithms including Monte Carlo techniques.
  • the FALCON system provides an automated radiation therapy dose planning system that uses the accurate dose calculations from the PEREGRINE dose calculation system or other dose calculation methods to identify the treatment plan that best meets the planners treatment objectives, thus providing a method for automatic multivariable optimization for arbitrary assessment criteria.
  • FALCON can be applied to numerous fields where outcome simulation is combined with optimization and assessment criteria.
  • a specific embodiment of FALCON is for automatic radiation therapy treatment planning.
  • FALCON implements dose calculations into the planning process and optimizes available beam delivery modifier parameters to determine the treatment plan that best meets clinical decision-making criteria.
  • FALCON is herein described in the context of the optimization of external-beam radiation therapy and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), but the concepts are also applicable to internal (brachytherapy) radiotherapy.
  • IMRT intensity modulated radiation therapy
  • the radiation beams that are usable in the present invention include photons or any charged or uncharged particles.
  • the method divides the problem into the following four discrete steps. 1. Case setup. 2. Beamlet dose calculation.
  • Figure 2 shows a possible IMRT treatment configuration for a prostate cancer case.
  • Figure 3 is a description of the patient (in this case, a test phantom) and incident beam directions.
  • Figures 4A-4D show that dose distributions related to the four specified criteria sets clearly show that different assessment criteria results in different optimized plans.
  • Figure 5 shows beamlet intensities for one beam, determined for the treatment plans that best meet the four sets of selection criteria.
  • Figure 1 shows a schematic diagram that describes FALCON's automatic treatment planning process. The following sections describe each major step in the method, and give an example that shows FALCON in operation.
  • the user provides information concerning patient description, beam description, penalty function and assessment criteria.
  • the patient description includes a three-dimensional map that adequately describes the patient's anatomy suitable for radiation dose calculations.
  • the description also includes tumor /sensitive structure identification to be used in the decision- making criteria for the automatic planning process.
  • Beam description also specifies the character (energy, particle type, delivery device) and orientation of each radiation beam. Any number of radiation sources can be used.
  • the penalty function is a mathematical function for optimization of beamlet intensities.
  • Assessment criteria is used for final plan assessment.
  • the assessment criteria can be based on a variety of concepts, including (i) dose-volume analysis which optimizes the relative amount of dose in target and other sensitive structure volumes and /or optimizes the volume of the target/ sensitive structure receiving greater or less than a specified dose and (ii) biological response which optimizes the probability of controlling the tumor and/or sparing sensitive structures (e.g. spinal cord, salivary glands, rectum, bladder, etc.) based on biological models of how the tumor and other tissues respond to radiation, or other methods that can describe dose or treatment goals mathematically.
  • dose-volume analysis which optimizes the relative amount of dose in target and other sensitive structure volumes and /or optimizes the volume of the target/ sensitive structure receiving greater or less than a specified dose
  • biological response which optimizes the probability of controlling the tumor and/or sparing sensitive structures (e.g. spinal cord, salivary glands, rectum, bladder, etc.) based on biological models of how the tumor and other tissues respond to radiation, or other methods that can describe dose or treatment goals mathematically.
  • FALCON divides each beam into individual beamlets. Beamlets are arbitrarily shaped sub- beams that tile the treatment beam, and are defined by masks oriented perpendicular to the central ray of each beam. The only radiation allowed through is that associated with the specific beamlet being simulated. FALCON can then use any dose calculation algorithm to determine the dose distribution in the patient for each beamlet.
  • An example of a dose calculation algorithm that could be used is the PEREGRINE Monte Carlo dose calculation system as described in the incorporated Patent Application.
  • Figure 2 illustrates how each beam is broken down into beamlets (in this case for a prostate cancer treatment). The CT slice of this prostate is shown to be irradiated by seven beams. Each treatment beam is broken down into beamlets with customized intensity, as illustrated by the small histograms 31-37
  • the absolute dose distribution per monitor intensity unit for each beamlet is stored (possibly in compressed form) to be used during the beamlet optimization phase.
  • FALCON determines the intensity-weight of each beamlet by optimizing according to a penalty function.
  • FALCON uses a quadratic, least-squares-type penalty function, P. The form of this function would be
  • D is the calculated dose and (a x ... a n ) are the intensities of the beamlets to be determined in the optimization process. D can also be expressed as the sum of the doses contributed by each beamlet, as in the formula: where a; is the beamlet amplitude and D ; is the dose per unit amplitude of the ith beamlet. F, T and D are all functions of position in the volume.
  • the advantage of this convex, quadratic penalty function is that it has a single minimum for this constrained optimization problem (a, is greater than or equal to 0) that can be reached rapidly using quadratic programming techniques. Other penalty functions having other characteristics may be used.
  • beamlet optimizations can be conducted simultaneously (possibly running on a multiprocessor hardware system such as the PEREGRINE dose calculation engine) for a wide range of penalty function parameters, starting with those specified by the user, and spanning the space of possible treatment options. Coverage of this phase space can be accomplished by randomized selection methods, systematic parameter variation, or parameter variation guided by goal- targeted mechanisms such as multiobjective decision theory.
  • dose distributions are assessed against specific criteria (16). Based on the set(s) of assessment criteria specified by the user, FALCON analyzes all beamlet optimization results, voxel- by-voxel, to determine a treatment plan that best meets each set of selection criteria.
  • assessment criteria can be used, based on concepts such as dose-volume analysis, in which dose to various parts of the body can be constrained, minimized, or maximized, and projected biological response, in which tumor control and tissue damage can be constrained, minimized, or maximized.
  • Dose distributions are calculated in parallel for a range of target dose and desirability (how much the user wants that particular dose) maps. The resulting dose distributions are judged against multiple sets of assessment criteria.
  • FALCON either exits or continues to search the space of target dose and desirability, optimizing beamlet for each set, then judging the new results against the multiple sets of assessment criteria. Once the assessment phase is completed, a resulting optimized plan 18 is reported for each set of assessment criteria.
  • Figure 3 illustrates a water box 50 with an L-shaped target volume 52, located next to a square air cavity 54 and surrounded by two sensitive structures 56 and 58.
  • This problem was chosen because of its similarity to a larynx tumor configuration, with the tumor adjacent to an air cavity and because of the intrinsic difficulty of optimizing dose with adjacent heterogeneous target and sensitive structures.
  • PEREGRINE dose calculations have shown the importance of accurate, Monte Carlo dose calculations and the need for intensity modulation to deliver a uniform dose distribution to areas with tissue heterogeneity.
  • the user has specified two incident beams 60 and 62, located 90 degrees apart.
  • Figure 3 illustrates the "CT scan” and user-specified beam directions.
  • Assessment criteria are specified in Table 1, which shows a summary of four sets of assessment criteria to be used by
  • FALCON begins the treatment planning process.
  • FALCON calculates the dose for each beamlet.
  • FALCON relies on the highly accurate PEREGRFME dose calculation system, which uses first-principles physics to model the effects of the air heterogeneity in the beamlet dose distribution.
  • the dose distribution for each unit-weight beamlet is individually calculated and stored before any optimization takes place. This means that the dose calculation is done once, and beamlet dose distributions can be reused repeatedly during the optimization process.
  • FALCON uses a quadratic penalty function to optimize beamlet intensities.
  • FALCON In order to cover the space of practical dose delivery scenarios, FALCON varies the penalty function parameters (tumor dose, sensitive structure dose, and the "desirability" factor). For each set of penalty function parameters, FALCON optimizes beamlet intensities by superimposing the precalculated beamlet dose distributions voxel by voxel on the irradiated volume.
  • Table 1 summarizes the assessment criteria specified for this problem.
  • Figures 4A-D illustrate how different criteria sets result in different dose distributions.
  • the planner forces the dose to the tumor to be > 75 Gy, then tries to minimize the dose to the sensitive structures. This results in small parts of the sensitive structures receiving greater than their tolerance dose of 30 Gy.
  • This planning strategy represents an aggressive approach that seeks first to cure the tumor, and accepts some potential complications. It may be the approach of choice if some damage to sensitive structures is tolerable, and/or there is a real chance of curing the patient's tumor.
  • Criteria Set II shown in Figure 4B represents a more conservative approach that might be used if damage to sensitive structures would cause severe damage or life-threatening conditions (e.g., transecting the spinal cord). This criteria set seeks first to keep the sensitive structure dose below its tolerance, then tries to maximize the tumor dose. It results in small parts of the tumor being treated with doses lower than the specified "curative" dose of 75 Gy.
  • Criteria Sets III and IV represent two strategies that explicitly attempt to maximize tumor control while minimizing sensitive structure damage.
  • Criteria Set III shown in Figure 4C, accomplishes this through a dose-volume approach: it maximizes the difference between the volume of tumor receiving dose > 75 Gy and the volume of sensitive structures receiving dose ⁇ 30 Gy.
  • Criteria Set IV shown in Figure 4D, accomplishes its objective by optimizing the difference between the probabilities of tumor control and normal tissue complications, as calculated from biological models which mathematically describe the ⁇ - shaped organ (and tumor) response curves. Both of these explicit optimization criteria result in higher overall doses to the tumor, while keeping the overall dose to the sensitive structures approximately the same as Criteria Sets I and II. Very small concessions are made in that the about 2-4 mm 3 dose volumes in the case where the tumor fall below the 75 Gy curative dose.
  • Figure 5 shows the beamlet intensities that FALCON recommends, based on the four different sets of assessment criteria. Each beam was divided into ten beamlets. Four of the ten beamlets are zero in every case. Since the problem is symmetric, beamlet intensities are the same (actually, a mirror reflection) for each beam. The figure shows beamlet intensities for one beam, determined for the treatment plans that best meet the four sets of selection criteria.
  • FALCON provides a number of advantages, including the __ following.
  • FALCON is the first treatment plan optimization system that allows the use of true three-dimensional Monte Carlo dose calculations for treatment planning. Unlike other systems, FALCON calculates beamlet dose distributions only once. This allows very rapid optimization with the highest accuracy, since doses from each beamlet do not need to be calculated for each iteration. It is the only treatment plan optimization system that divides optimization and assessment, allowing rapid, parallel variation of optimization parameters in order to reach a treatment plan that best matches each set of assessment criteria.
  • FALCON supports numerous types of optimized treatment delivery methods, including Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) delivered with blocks, fixed multileaf collimators, dynamic multileaf collimators, molded modifiers (compensators), mixed modalities (combinations of beam types) etc. These features make FALCON a significant advancement over currently-existing treatment planning systems. In addition, FALCON can be used for all types of radiation treatment planning modalities

Abstract

FALCON is a method for automatic mulivariable optimization for arbitrary assessment criteria that can be applied to numerous fields where outcome simulation is combined with optimization and assessment criteria. A specific implementation of FALCON is for automatic radiation therapy treatment planning. In this application, FALCON implements dose calculations into the planning process and optimizes available beam delivery modifier parameters to determine the treatment plan that best meets clinical decision-making criteria. FALCON is described in the context of the optimization of external-beam radiation therapy and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), but the concepts could also be applied to internal (brachytherapy) radiotherapy. The radiation beams could consist of photons or any charged or uncharged particles. The concept of optimizing source distributions can be applied to complex radiography (e.g. flash x-ray or proton) to improve the imaging capabilities of facilities proposed for science-based stockpile stewardship.

Description

FALCON: AUTOMATED OPTIMIZATION METHOD FOR ARBITRARY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 08/610,917 titled: "Calculation of Radiation Therapy Dose Using All Particle Monte Carlo Transport."
The United States Government has rights in this invention pursuant to Contract No. W-7405-ENG-48 between the United States
Department of Energy and the University of California for the operation of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to systems and methods for obtaining optimized radiation dose deposition, and more particularly for automatically generating individually optimized treatment strategies for multiple treatment goals on a single patient, multiple patients or treatment sites. Description of Related Art
The goal of radiation therapy is to deliver a high, curative dose to a tumor, while minimizing the dose to normal tissues and limiting the dose in critical healthy structures to their radiation dose tolerance. In the past several years, significant advances have been made to identify and characterize in three dimensions the patient's tumor, as well as normal, sensitive structures, and then deliver a high dose that conforms to the three-dimensional volume of the tumor. Enabling imaging technologies are computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the body, which are now a common part of radiation therapy planning. New methods for specifically identifying the location of tumors and cancerous tissue include magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) and proton emission spectroscopy (PET). In addition, computer- controlled beam modifiers, such as multileaf collimators and dynamic wedges on linear accelerators offer the ability to both shape the radiation beam and sculpt the beam profile in three dimensions. Sculpting the beam profile is accomplished using a technique referred to as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Incorporated in multiple-beam plans, IMRT can deliver a complex map of dose, in which the therapy can be made to conform closely to the patient's tumor.
Two critical links required for accurate delivery of the optimal conformal therapy plan are the ability to accurately predict the dose distribution in the patient (given a dose-delivery configuration), and the ability to optimize the treatment plan or dose delivery configuration to yield the most advantageous dose distribution for the patient. The PEREGRINE dose calculation system, developed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, uses Monte Carlo transport calculations to provide highly accurate three-dimensional dose calculation for radiation therapy. The FALCON automated planning system, described here, uses these accurate dose calculations to identify and prescribe the treatment plan that best meets the planners treatment objectives.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION It is an object of the present invention to provide an automated radiation therapy dose planning system that uses the dose calculations from any arbitrarily accurate dose calculation system, including PEREGRINE, to identify the treatment plan that best meets the planners treatment objectives. FALCON enables identification of the most optimized treatment configuration for multiple treatment goals simultaneously. More generally the methods described here will provide the optimized configuration with accuracy limited by the accuracy of the dose calculation algorithm and can be used for highly accurate algorithms including Monte Carlo techniques. The FALCON system provides an automated radiation therapy dose planning system that uses the accurate dose calculations from the PEREGRINE dose calculation system or other dose calculation methods to identify the treatment plan that best meets the planners treatment objectives, thus providing a method for automatic multivariable optimization for arbitrary assessment criteria. The PEREGRINE dose calculation system is described in U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 08/610,917 titled: "Calculation of Radiation Therapy Dose Using All Particle Monte Carlo Transport" which is incorporated herein by reference. FALCON can be applied to numerous fields where outcome simulation is combined with optimization and assessment criteria. A specific embodiment of FALCON is for automatic radiation therapy treatment planning. FALCON implements dose calculations into the planning process and optimizes available beam delivery modifier parameters to determine the treatment plan that best meets clinical decision-making criteria. FALCON is herein described in the context of the optimization of external-beam radiation therapy and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), but the concepts are also applicable to internal (brachytherapy) radiotherapy. The radiation beams that are usable in the present invention include photons or any charged or uncharged particles.
In the radiation therapy implementation, the method divides the problem into the following four discrete steps. 1. Case setup. 2. Beamlet dose calculation.
3. Beamlet weight optimization.
4. Plan assessment.
This method decouples the time-consuming processes of dose calculation, optimization and assessment, and rapidly optimizes the treatment plan for any arbitrary assessment criteria. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS Figure 1 is a flow chart describing the automatic treatment planning process of the present invention.
Figure 2 shows a possible IMRT treatment configuration for a prostate cancer case. Figure 3 is a description of the patient (in this case, a test phantom) and incident beam directions.
Figures 4A-4D show that dose distributions related to the four specified criteria sets clearly show that different assessment criteria results in different optimized plans. Figure 5 shows beamlet intensities for one beam, determined for the treatment plans that best meet the four sets of selection criteria. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION Figure 1 shows a schematic diagram that describes FALCON's automatic treatment planning process. The following sections describe each major step in the method, and give an example that shows FALCON in operation.
In the Case Setup step (10), the user provides information concerning patient description, beam description, penalty function and assessment criteria. The patient description includes a three-dimensional map that adequately describes the patient's anatomy suitable for radiation dose calculations. The description also includes tumor /sensitive structure identification to be used in the decision- making criteria for the automatic planning process. Beam description also specifies the character (energy, particle type, delivery device) and orientation of each radiation beam. Any number of radiation sources can be used. The penalty function is a mathematical function for optimization of beamlet intensities. Assessment criteria is used for final plan assessment. The assessment criteria can be based on a variety of concepts, including (i) dose-volume analysis which optimizes the relative amount of dose in target and other sensitive structure volumes and /or optimizes the volume of the target/ sensitive structure receiving greater or less than a specified dose and (ii) biological response which optimizes the probability of controlling the tumor and/or sparing sensitive structures (e.g. spinal cord, salivary glands, rectum, bladder, etc.) based on biological models of how the tumor and other tissues respond to radiation, or other methods that can describe dose or treatment goals mathematically.
In the Beamlet Dose Calculation step (12), FALCON divides each beam into individual beamlets. Beamlets are arbitrarily shaped sub- beams that tile the treatment beam, and are defined by masks oriented perpendicular to the central ray of each beam. The only radiation allowed through is that associated with the specific beamlet being simulated. FALCON can then use any dose calculation algorithm to determine the dose distribution in the patient for each beamlet. An example of a dose calculation algorithm that could be used is the PEREGRINE Monte Carlo dose calculation system as described in the incorporated Patent Application. Figure 2 illustrates how each beam is broken down into beamlets (in this case for a prostate cancer treatment). The CT slice of this prostate is shown to be irradiated by seven beams. Each treatment beam is broken down into beamlets with customized intensity, as illustrated by the small histograms 31-37
The absolute dose distribution per monitor intensity unit for each beamlet is stored (possibly in compressed form) to be used during the beamlet optimization phase.
Referring again to Figure 1, during the beamlet optimization phase (14), FALCON determines the intensity-weight of each beamlet by optimizing according to a penalty function. As an example of one embodiment, FALCON uses a quadratic, least-squares-type penalty function, P. The form of this function would be
P(aι ... an) = JF.[T - D]2 dV where F is the "desirability factor" (initialized to 1), T is the target dose,
D is the calculated dose and (ax ... an) are the intensities of the beamlets to be determined in the optimization process. D can also be expressed as the sum of the doses contributed by each beamlet, as in the formula:
Figure imgf000008_0001
where a; is the beamlet amplitude and D; is the dose per unit amplitude of the ith beamlet. F, T and D are all functions of position in the volume. The advantage of this convex, quadratic penalty function is that it has a single minimum for this constrained optimization problem (a, is greater than or equal to 0) that can be reached rapidly using quadratic programming techniques. Other penalty functions having other characteristics may be used. Although not required, for functionality, in order to attain enhanced speed, beamlet optimizations can be conducted simultaneously (possibly running on a multiprocessor hardware system such as the PEREGRINE dose calculation engine) for a wide range of penalty function parameters, starting with those specified by the user, and spanning the space of possible treatment options. Coverage of this phase space can be accomplished by randomized selection methods, systematic parameter variation, or parameter variation guided by goal- targeted mechanisms such as multiobjective decision theory.
Referring to Figure 1, dose distributions are assessed against specific criteria (16). Based on the set(s) of assessment criteria specified by the user, FALCON analyzes all beamlet optimization results, voxel- by-voxel, to determine a treatment plan that best meets each set of selection criteria. Several different types of assessment criteria can be used, based on concepts such as dose-volume analysis, in which dose to various parts of the body can be constrained, minimized, or maximized, and projected biological response, in which tumor control and tissue damage can be constrained, minimized, or maximized. Dose distributions are calculated in parallel for a range of target dose and desirability (how much the user wants that particular dose) maps. The resulting dose distributions are judged against multiple sets of assessment criteria. Based on the results of these assessments, FALCON either exits or continues to search the space of target dose and desirability, optimizing beamlet for each set, then judging the new results against the multiple sets of assessment criteria. Once the assessment phase is completed, a resulting optimized plan 18 is reported for each set of assessment criteria.
The following example, demonstrates the operation and usefulness of FALCON for automatic treatment planning. Figure 3 illustrates a water box 50 with an L-shaped target volume 52, located next to a square air cavity 54 and surrounded by two sensitive structures 56 and 58. This problem was chosen because of its similarity to a larynx tumor configuration, with the tumor adjacent to an air cavity and because of the intrinsic difficulty of optimizing dose with adjacent heterogeneous target and sensitive structures. PEREGRINE dose calculations have shown the importance of accurate, Monte Carlo dose calculations and the need for intensity modulation to deliver a uniform dose distribution to areas with tissue heterogeneity.
The user has specified two incident beams 60 and 62, located 90 degrees apart. Figure 3 illustrates the "CT scan" and user-specified beam directions. Assessment criteria are specified in Table 1, which shows a summary of four sets of assessment criteria to be used by
FALCON to find the best treatment plan.
Once the "patient" description, input beam configuration and assessment criteria have been specified, FALCON begins the treatment planning process. First, FALCON calculates the dose for each beamlet. For this case, FALCON relies on the highly accurate PEREGRFME dose calculation system, which uses first-principles physics to model the effects of the air heterogeneity in the beamlet dose distribution. The dose distribution for each unit-weight beamlet is individually calculated and stored before any optimization takes place. This means that the dose calculation is done once, and beamlet dose distributions can be reused repeatedly during the optimization process. During the beamlet optimization phase, in this example, FALCON uses a quadratic penalty function to optimize beamlet intensities. In order to cover the space of practical dose delivery scenarios, FALCON varies the penalty function parameters (tumor dose, sensitive structure dose, and the "desirability" factor). For each set of penalty function parameters, FALCON optimizes beamlet intensities by superimposing the precalculated beamlet dose distributions voxel by voxel on the irradiated volume.
The optimized dose distributions determined with different penalty function parameters are then judged on the basis of the assessment criteria. Table 1 summarizes the assessment criteria specified for this problem. Figures 4A-D illustrate how different criteria sets result in different dose distributions.
Referring to Figure 4A, for Criteria Set I, the planner forces the dose to the tumor to be > 75 Gy, then tries to minimize the dose to the sensitive structures. This results in small parts of the sensitive structures receiving greater than their tolerance dose of 30 Gy. This planning strategy represents an aggressive approach that seeks first to cure the tumor, and accepts some potential complications. It may be the approach of choice if some damage to sensitive structures is tolerable, and/or there is a real chance of curing the patient's tumor.
Criteria Set II shown in Figure 4B represents a more conservative approach that might be used if damage to sensitive structures would cause severe damage or life-threatening conditions (e.g., transecting the spinal cord). This criteria set seeks first to keep the sensitive structure dose below its tolerance, then tries to maximize the tumor dose. It results in small parts of the tumor being treated with doses lower than the specified "curative" dose of 75 Gy.
Criteria Sets III and IV represent two strategies that explicitly attempt to maximize tumor control while minimizing sensitive structure damage. Criteria Set III, shown in Figure 4C, accomplishes this through a dose-volume approach: it maximizes the difference between the volume of tumor receiving dose > 75 Gy and the volume of sensitive structures receiving dose < 30 Gy. Criteria Set IV, shown in Figure 4D, accomplishes its objective by optimizing the difference between the probabilities of tumor control and normal tissue complications, as calculated from biological models which mathematically describe the σ- shaped organ (and tumor) response curves. Both of these explicit optimization criteria result in higher overall doses to the tumor, while keeping the overall dose to the sensitive structures approximately the same as Criteria Sets I and II. Very small concessions are made in that the about 2-4 mm3 dose volumes in the case where the tumor fall below the 75 Gy curative dose.
Figure 5 shows the beamlet intensities that FALCON recommends, based on the four different sets of assessment criteria. Each beam was divided into ten beamlets. Four of the ten beamlets are zero in every case. Since the problem is symmetric, beamlet intensities are the same (actually, a mirror reflection) for each beam. The figure shows beamlet intensities for one beam, determined for the treatment plans that best meet the four sets of selection criteria.
The above example illustrates how FALCON works and how it facilitates rapid, automatic treatment planning for multiple assessment criteria. It is clear that relatively small differences in beamlet intensity patterns that would not have been anticipated using standard (non- optimized) treatment planning methods result in significantly different dose distributions, that represent optimization to various type of assessment criteria. Because radiation treatment planning is currently done primarily through physician experience, actual decision-making criteria for treatment planning are now not well-known. FALCON gives the physician the ability to rapidly determine highly-accurate treatment plans that best meet a variety of criteria sets. This allows the physician to explore the meaning of both explicit and hidden assumptions used in plan selection, and ultimately arrive at the best treatment plan for the patient. In time, with accumulated experience using FALCON, new treatment strategies will be developed that can provide even better patient outcomes.
FALCON provides a number of advantages, including the __ following. FALCON is the first treatment plan optimization system that allows the use of true three-dimensional Monte Carlo dose calculations for treatment planning. Unlike other systems, FALCON calculates beamlet dose distributions only once. This allows very rapid optimization with the highest accuracy, since doses from each beamlet do not need to be calculated for each iteration. It is the only treatment plan optimization system that divides optimization and assessment, allowing rapid, parallel variation of optimization parameters in order to reach a treatment plan that best matches each set of assessment criteria. FALCON supports numerous types of optimized treatment delivery methods, including Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) delivered with blocks, fixed multileaf collimators, dynamic multileaf collimators, molded modifiers (compensators), mixed modalities (combinations of beam types) etc. These features make FALCON a significant advancement over currently-existing treatment planning systems. In addition, FALCON can be used for all types of radiation treatment planning modalities
Changes and modifications in the specifically described embodiments can be carried out without departing from the scope of the invention, which is intended to be limited by the scope of the appended claims.

Claims

THE INVENTION CLAIMED IS
1. A method for automated radiation therapy dose planning, comprising: providing patient description, beam description, a penalty function and assessment criteria; dividing the radiation treatment beam into individual beamlets; determining the dose distribution in the patient for each beamlet; storing the absolute dose distribution per monitor intensity unit for each beamlet; determining the intensity-weight of each beamlet by optimizing according to a penalty function; and analyzing all beamlet optimization results, voxel-by-voxel, or dosel by dosel to determine a treatment plan that best meets each set of assessment criteria.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the patient description includes a three-dimensional map that adequately describes the patient's anatomy suitable for radiation dose calculations in the context of a particular treatment method.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the patient description includes identification of tumor/ sensitive structures.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the beam description specifies the character (energy, particle type, delivery device) and orientation of each radiation beam.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the penalty function is a mathematical function for optimization of beamlet intensities.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the assessment criteria is selected from a group consisting of dose-volume analysis, tumor-dose ΓÇö maximization and biological response.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein said beamlets are arbitrarily shaped sub-beams that tile the treatment beam, and are defined by masks oriented perpendicular to the central ray of each beam.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the penalty function comprises a quadratic, least-squares-type penalty function, P having the form:
P(a1 ... an) = JF.[T - D]2 dV where F is the "desirability factor" (initialized to 1), T is the target dose, and D is the calculated dose, wherein D can also be expressed as the sum of the doses contributed by each beamlet, as in the formula:
Figure imgf000014_0001
where aj is the beamlet amplitude and Dj is the dose per unit amplitude of the ith beamlet, wherein F, T, and D are all functions of position in the volume.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the assessment criteria includes dose-volume analysis, in which dose to various parts of the body can be constrained, minimized, or maximized and wherein said assessment criteria further includes projected biological response, in which tumor control and tissue damage can be constrained, minimized, or maximized or other suitably described assessment criteria..
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the assessment criteria includes four sets of criteria, wherein Criteria Set I forces the dose to the tumor to be > 75 Gy, then tries to minimize the dose to the sensitive structures, wherein Criteria Set II seeks first to keep the sensitive structure dose below its tolerance, then tries to maximize the tumor dose, wherein
Criteria Sets III and IV represent two strategies that explicitly attempt to maximize tumor control while minimizing sensitive structure damage, wherein Criteria Set El maximizes the difference between the volume of tumor receiving dose > 75 Gy and the volume of sensitive structures receiving dose < 30 Gy and wherein Criteria Set IV optimizes the ΓÇö difference between the probabilities of tumor control and normal tissue complications.
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of determining the dose distribution comprises: constructing patient-dependent information necessary for a Monte-Carlo transport calculation; executing said Monte-Carlo transport calculation; and producing, from said patient-dependent information and said Monte-Carlo transport calculation, a 3-dimensional map of the dose delivered to said patient.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of constructing patient dependent-information comprises: determining user-specified options from an input of (i) Monte Carlo parameters, (ii) physics options and (iii) output options, to set switches for code control; determining the number of energy groups for transport of each particle type from nuclear/atomic/electron data to provide the number of energy groups for each particle type; using computed tomography (CT) information to define dimensions and material composition for each CT voxel from an input of
(i) user options comprising user-specified thresholds for processing CT scans and (ii) a CT scan array to contribute to the production of a material specification array; reading user-drawn contours that describe patient structures and modifying said material specification arrays from an input of a second set of user options comprising user-drawn contours, to complete the production of said material specification array and to provide a standard deviation zone identification array; reading user input specifying each radiation beam source from an input of radiation source specifications comprising external beam ΓÇö characteristics and modifiers to provide radiation source angular and energy distributions and arrays describing beam delivery components; reading user input specifying each internal (brachytherapy) source from an input of an internal radiation source specification to provide radiation source angular and energy distributions; completing the final setup for material arrays from an input of material composition data which is defined internally within the code to provide problem dependent material and isotope specification arrays; reading nuclear and atomic data and constructing transport arrays from an input of (i) said nuclear/ atomic/electron data, (ii) said number of energy groups for each particle type and (iii) said problem- dependent material and isotope specification arrays to provide (i) nuclear and atomic transport data arrays, (ii) heavy charged particle transport data arrays and (iii) energy group structure for each particle type; and reading electron data and constructing transport arrays from an input of (i) said nuclear/ atomic/electron data and (ii) said problem- dependent material and isotope specification arrays to produce electron transport data arrays.
13. The method of claim 11, wherein the step of executing the Monte Carlo transport calculation comprises: selecting particle attributes for a primary particle arising from an external radiation beam from an input of (i) radiation source angular and energy distributions, (ii) arrays describing beam delivery components, (iii) material data, (iv) nuclear and atomic transport data arrays and (v) number and energy group structure for each particle type, and to contribute a first portion to the provision of attributes of one particle, wherein said attributes comprise energy, location, direction and type; selecting particle attributes for a primary particle arising from an internal radiation source from an input of radiation source angular and energy distributions to contribute a second portion to the provision of said attributes of one particle; selecting a particle that has been created by an interaction of another particle in a transport mesh from an input of secondary particle arrays to provide a third portion to and complete the provision of said attributes of one particle;
(i) tracking a neutron through said transport mesh, (ii) recording energy deposited by said neutron and (iii) storing attributes of secondary particles produced in a secondary particle array from an input of (i) attributes of one particle (said neutron), (ii) switches set for code control, (iii) a material specification array, (iv) material data, (v) nuclear transport data arrays, and (vi) the number and energy group structure for said neutrons, to provide secondary particle arrays for neutrons and a 3-D energy deposit map for neutrons;
(i) tracking a photon through said transport mesh, (ii) recording energy deposited by said photon and (iii) storing attributes of secondary particles produced in secondary particle arrays for photons from an input of (i) attributes of one photon particle, (ii) said switches set for code control, (iii) said material specification arrays , (iv) said material data, (v) said atomic transport data arrays, and (vi) number and energy group structure for photons, to provide secondary particle arrays for photons and a 3-D energy deposit map for photons; (i) tracking a heavy charged particle through said transport mesh, (ii) recording the energy deposited by said heavy charged particle and (iii) storing the attributes of secondary particles produced in secondary particle arrays for heavy charged particles from an input of (i) said switch settings for code control, (ii) said material specification array, (iii) said material data, (iv) said nuclear transport data arrays, (v) heavy charged particle transport data arrays and (vi) the number and energy group structure for heavy charged particles to provide secondary particle arrays for heavy charged particles and a 3-D deposit map for heavy charged particles; (i) tracking a primary electron through said transport mesh, (ii) recording the energy deposited by said electron and (iii) storing the attributes of secondary particles produced in secondary particle arrays for primary electrons from an input of (i) the attributes of one particle (primary electron), (ii) said switch settings for code control, (iii) said material specification array, (iv) said material data, (v) electron transport data arrays and (vi) said number and energy group structure for said electrons to provide secondary particle arrays for primary electrons and a 3-D energy deposit map for primary electrons;
(i) tracking secondary electrons through said transport mesh, (ii) recording the energy deposited by said secondary electron and (iii) storing the attributes of secondary particles produced (secondary electrons) in secondary particle arrays for secondary electrons from an input of (i) the attributes of one particle (a secondary electron), (ii) said switch settings for code control, (iii) said material specification array, (iv) said material data, (v) said electron transport data arrays and (vi) said number and energy group structure for electrons to provide said secondary particle arrays for secondary electrons and a 3-D energy deposit map for secondary electrons; adding all 3-D energy deposit maps calculated over a batch to a 3-D energy deposit map for the problem from an input of a 3-D energy deposit map calculated for a single batch to provide an integral 3-D energy deposit map; updating the arrays necessary for a standard deviation calculation with energy deposit information determined from each said batch from an input of said integral 3-D energy deposit map and a standard deviation zone ID array to provide standard deviation precalculation arrays; and ΓÇö calculating standard deviation from an input of said standard deviation precalculation arrays to provide standard deviation arrays.
14. The method of claim 11, wherein the step of producing said patient dependent information and said Monte Carlo transport calculation, a 3 dimensional map of the dose delivered to said patient, comprises: writing a problem summary into an ASCII output file; calculating the dose from said integral 3-D map of energy deposited; and writing out a 3-D dose map from an input of said integral 3-D energy deposit array and said standard deviation arrays, wherein said 3-D dose map is written in a form selected from a group consisting of ASCII and binary.
15. The method of claim 11, wherein said radiation therapy dose planning comprises a radiation source that produces particles selected from a group consisting of photons, light charged particles (electrons, positrons), heavy charged particles (protons, deuterons, tritons, helium-3, alpha particles), and neutrons.
16. The method of claim 11, wherein said radiation therapy dose planning comprises at least one external radiation source delivery system.
17. The method of claim 11, wherein said radiation therapy dose planning comprises at least one internal radiation source delivery system.
18. The method of claim 11, wherein said radiation therapy dose planning comprises a source delivery system selected from a group consisting of teletherapy, brachytherapy and boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT).
19. An apparatus, comprising: a computer readable memory; and ΓÇö a computer program loaded into said computer readable memory, wherein said computer program comprises means for determining a radiation dose delivered to a patient.
20. A computer system for determining the radiation dose to deliver a patient, comprising: computer hardware means including a CPU, a memory and peripherals for inputting CT scan data array, nuclear/ atomic/electron data, radiation source specifications and user option data, and for outputting a plan for radiation dose delivery to a patient; and computer software means resident and in control of the computer hardware means for converting information from said inputs to said plan by a computer implemented process for Monte Carlo transport.
21. An apparatus for automated radiation therapy dose planning, comprising: means for providing patient description, beam description, a penalty function and assessment criteria; means for dividing the radiation treatment beam into individual beamlets; means for determining the dose distribution in the patient for each beamlet; means for storing the absolute dose distribution per monitor intensity unit for each beamlet; means for determining the intensity-weight of each beamlet by optimizing according to a penalty function; and means for analyzing all beamlet optimization results, voxel-by- voxel, or dosel by dosel to determine a treatment plan that best meets each set of assessment criteria.
22. The apparatus of claim 21, wherein the means for providing a patient description includes means for providing a three-dimensional- map that adequately describes the patient's anatomy suitable for radiation dose calculations in the context of a particular treatment method.
23. The apparatus of claim 21, wherein said means for providing patient description includes means for the identification of tumor /sensitive structures.
24. The apparatus of claim 21, wherein said means for providing beam description includes means for specifying the character (energy, particle type, delivery device) and orientation of each radiation beam.
25. The apparatus of claim 21, wherein said penalty function is a mathematical function for optimization of beamlet intensities.
26. The apparatus of claim 21, wherein said assessment criteria is selected from a group consisting of dose-volume analysis, tumor-dose maximization and biological response.
27. The apparatus of claim 21, wherein said beamlets are arbitrarily shaped sub-beams that tile the treatment beam, and are defined by masks oriented perpendicular to the central ray of each beam.
28. The apparatus of claim 21, wherein said penalty function comprises a quadratic, least-squares-type penalty function, P having the form:
P(a╬▒ ... an) = JF.[T - D]2 dV where F is the "desirability factor" (initialized to 1), T is the target dose, and D is the calculated dose, wherein D can also be expressed as the sum of the doses contributed by each beamlet, as in the formula:
Figure imgf000021_0001
where aj is the beamlet amplitude and Dj is the dose per unit amplitude of the ith beamlet, wherein F, T, and D are all functions of position in the volume.
29. The apparatus of claim 21, wherein said assessment criteria includes dose-volume analysis, in which dose to various parts of the body can be constrained, minimized, or maximized and wherein said assessment criteria further includes projected biological response, in which tumor control and tissue damage can be constrained, minimized, or maximized or other suitably described assessment criteria.
30. The apparatus of claim 21, wherein said assessment criteria includes four sets of criteria, wherein Criteria Set I forces the dose to the tumor to be > 75 Gy, then tries to minimize the dose to the sensitive structures, wherein Criteria Set π seeks first to keep the sensitive structure dose below its tolerance, then tries to maximize the tumor dose, wherein
Criteria Sets HI and IV represent two strategies that explicitly attempt to maximize tumor control while minimizing sensitive structure damage, wherein Criteria Set πi maximizes the difference between the volume of tumor receiving dose > 75 Gy and the volume of sensitive structures receiving dose < 30 Gy and wherein Criteria Set IV optimizes the difference between the probabilities of tumor control and normal tissue complications.
PCT/US1999/020785 1998-09-10 1999-09-10 Falcon: automated optimization method for arbitrary assessment criteria WO2000015299A1 (en)

Priority Applications (4)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
JP2000569883A JP2003534823A (en) 1998-09-10 1999-09-10 FALCON: How to automatically optimize any assessment criteria
EP99969041A EP1119395A1 (en) 1998-09-10 1999-09-10 Falcon: automated optimization method for arbitrary assessment criteria
AU60331/99A AU6033199A (en) 1998-09-10 1999-09-10 Falcon: automated optimization method for arbitrary assessment criteria
CA002343210A CA2343210C (en) 1998-09-10 1999-09-10 Falcon: automated optimization method for arbitrary assessment criteria

Applications Claiming Priority (4)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
US10005698P 1998-09-10 1998-09-10
US60/100,056 1998-09-10
US09/247,653 1999-02-09
US09/247,653 US6260005B1 (en) 1996-03-05 1999-02-09 Falcon: automated optimization method for arbitrary assessment criteria

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
WO2000015299A1 true WO2000015299A1 (en) 2000-03-23

Family

ID=26796766

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
PCT/US1999/020785 WO2000015299A1 (en) 1998-09-10 1999-09-10 Falcon: automated optimization method for arbitrary assessment criteria

Country Status (6)

Country Link
US (1) US6260005B1 (en)
EP (1) EP1119395A1 (en)
JP (2) JP2003534823A (en)
AU (1) AU6033199A (en)
CA (1) CA2343210C (en)
WO (1) WO2000015299A1 (en)

Cited By (24)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
GB2367472A (en) * 2000-05-12 2002-04-03 Siemens Medical Systems Inc Radiation therapy planning and dose optimisation
WO2002049044A2 (en) * 2000-12-13 2002-06-20 Elekta Ab (Publ) Radiotherapeutic apparatus comprising multileaf collimator
US6907105B2 (en) 2001-09-25 2005-06-14 Bc Cancer Agency Methods and apparatus for planning and delivering intensity modulated radiation fields with a rotating multileaf collimator
US7734010B2 (en) 2005-05-13 2010-06-08 Bc Cancer Agency Method and apparatus for planning and delivering radiation treatment
US7880154B2 (en) 2005-07-25 2011-02-01 Karl Otto Methods and apparatus for the planning and delivery of radiation treatments
US7906770B2 (en) 2005-07-25 2011-03-15 Karl Otto Methods and apparatus for the planning and delivery of radiation treatments
US8073103B2 (en) 2006-07-27 2011-12-06 British Columbia Cancer Agency Branch Systems and methods for optimization of on-line adaptive radiation therapy
US8699664B2 (en) 2006-07-27 2014-04-15 British Columbia Center Agency Branch Systems and methods for optimization of on-line adaptive radiation therapy
US9283403B2 (en) 2011-03-31 2016-03-15 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Systems and methods for use in emission guided radiation therapy
US9498167B2 (en) 2005-04-29 2016-11-22 Varian Medical Systems, Inc. System and methods for treating patients using radiation
US9820700B2 (en) 2008-03-14 2017-11-21 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Method and apparatus for emission guided radiation therapy
US10004650B2 (en) 2005-04-29 2018-06-26 Varian Medical Systems, Inc. Dynamic patient positioning system
USRE46953E1 (en) 2007-04-20 2018-07-17 University Of Maryland, Baltimore Single-arc dose painting for precision radiation therapy
EP3574956A1 (en) * 2018-05-30 2019-12-04 RaySearch Laboratories AB A method and a corresponding radiation treatment system for facilitating optimization of a multimodal radiation therapy plan
US10500416B2 (en) 2015-06-10 2019-12-10 Reflexion Medical, Inc. High bandwidth binary multi-leaf collimator design
US10603515B2 (en) 2017-08-09 2020-03-31 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Systems and methods for fault detection in emission-guided radiotherapy
US10695586B2 (en) 2016-11-15 2020-06-30 Reflexion Medical, Inc. System for emission-guided high-energy photon delivery
US10702715B2 (en) 2016-11-15 2020-07-07 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Radiation therapy patient platform
US10773101B2 (en) 2010-06-22 2020-09-15 Varian Medical Systems International Ag System and method for estimating and manipulating estimated radiation dose
US10795037B2 (en) 2017-07-11 2020-10-06 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Methods for pet detector afterglow management
US10918884B2 (en) 2016-03-09 2021-02-16 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Fluence map generation methods for radiotherapy
US11369806B2 (en) 2017-11-14 2022-06-28 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Systems and methods for patient monitoring for radiotherapy
US11406846B2 (en) 2016-11-15 2022-08-09 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Methods for radiation delivery in emission-guided radiotherapy
US11504550B2 (en) 2017-03-30 2022-11-22 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Radiation therapy systems and methods with tumor tracking

Families Citing this family (79)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US6148272A (en) * 1998-11-12 2000-11-14 The Regents Of The University Of California System and method for radiation dose calculation within sub-volumes of a monte carlo based particle transport grid
US6546073B1 (en) * 1999-11-05 2003-04-08 Georgia Tech Research Corporation Systems and methods for global optimization of treatment planning for external beam radiation therapy
US7046762B2 (en) * 1999-11-05 2006-05-16 Georgia Tech Research Corporation Systems and methods for global optimization of treatment planning for external beam radiation therapy
US6504898B1 (en) * 2000-04-17 2003-01-07 Mds (Canada) Inc. Product irradiator for optimizing dose uniformity in products
US6504899B2 (en) 2000-09-25 2003-01-07 The Board Of Trustees Of The Leland Stanford Junior University Method for selecting beam orientations in intensity modulated radiation therapy
JP2002210028A (en) * 2001-01-23 2002-07-30 Mitsubishi Electric Corp Radiation irradiating system and radiation irradiating method
US6697452B2 (en) * 2001-02-16 2004-02-24 The Board Of Trustees Of The Leland Stanford Junior University Verification method of monitor units and fluence map in intensity modulated radiation therapy
US6687527B1 (en) * 2001-08-28 2004-02-03 Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V. System and method of user guidance in magnetic resonance imaging including operating curve feedback and multi-dimensional parameter optimization
US7162008B2 (en) * 2001-12-03 2007-01-09 University Of Maryland, Baltimore Method for the planning and delivery of radiation therapy
US8406844B2 (en) * 2002-03-06 2013-03-26 Tomotherapy Incorporated Method for modification of radiotherapy treatment delivery
US20030212325A1 (en) * 2002-03-12 2003-11-13 Cristian Cotrutz Method for determining a dose distribution in radiation therapy
WO2003085493A2 (en) * 2002-03-29 2003-10-16 Agilent Technologies, Inc. Method and system for predicting multi-variable outcomes
US6882702B2 (en) * 2002-04-29 2005-04-19 University Of Miami Intensity modulated radiotherapy inverse planning algorithm
US6735277B2 (en) 2002-05-23 2004-05-11 Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. Inverse planning for intensity-modulated radiotherapy
US7266175B1 (en) * 2003-07-11 2007-09-04 Nomos Corporation Planning method for radiation therapy
US7617080B2 (en) * 2003-07-18 2009-11-10 The United States Of America As Represented By The Department Of Health And Human Services Image enhancement by spatial linear deconvolution
US20050126794A1 (en) * 2003-12-12 2005-06-16 Palmer Gerald R. Fire prevention system
WO2005081842A2 (en) * 2004-02-20 2005-09-09 University Of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. System for delivering conformal radiation therapy while simultaneously imaging soft tissue
US7027557B2 (en) * 2004-05-13 2006-04-11 Jorge Llacer Method for assisted beam selection in radiation therapy planning
DE602004022964D1 (en) * 2004-12-23 2009-10-15 Nucletron Bv Method and device for calculating the radiation dose distribution for a radiation therapy system
US8125813B2 (en) 2005-06-16 2012-02-28 Best Medical International, Inc. Variance reduction simulation system, program product, and related methods
US8442287B2 (en) 2005-07-22 2013-05-14 Tomotherapy Incorporated Method and system for evaluating quality assurance criteria in delivery of a treatment plan
WO2007014105A2 (en) * 2005-07-22 2007-02-01 Tomotherapy Incorporated Method and system for adapting a radiation therapy treatment plan based on a biological model
JP5390855B2 (en) 2005-07-23 2014-01-15 トモセラピー・インコーポレーテッド Imaging and delivery of radiation therapy using coordinated movement of gantry and treatment table
BRPI0715118B8 (en) * 2006-08-01 2021-07-27 Koninklijke Philips Electronics Nv therapy prescription system and apparatus
GB2442498A (en) * 2006-10-03 2008-04-09 Elekta Ab Treatment planning systems
US7583950B2 (en) 2006-10-05 2009-09-01 Harris Corporation High linearity tunable bandpass filter
US7620147B2 (en) 2006-12-13 2009-11-17 Oraya Therapeutics, Inc. Orthovoltage radiotherapy
US7535991B2 (en) 2006-10-16 2009-05-19 Oraya Therapeutics, Inc. Portable orthovoltage radiotherapy
US8363783B2 (en) 2007-06-04 2013-01-29 Oraya Therapeutics, Inc. Method and device for ocular alignment and coupling of ocular structures
US8512236B2 (en) 2008-01-11 2013-08-20 Oraya Therapeutics, Inc. System and method for positioning and stabilizing an eye
JP2011502010A (en) * 2007-10-25 2011-01-20 トモセラピー・インコーポレーテッド System and method for motion adaptive optimization of radiation therapy delivery
US8467497B2 (en) * 2007-10-25 2013-06-18 Tomotherapy Incorporated System and method for motion adaptive optimization for radiation therapy delivery
US8222616B2 (en) * 2007-10-25 2012-07-17 Tomotherapy Incorporated Method for adapting fractionation of a radiation therapy dose
US8085899B2 (en) * 2007-12-12 2011-12-27 Varian Medical Systems International Ag Treatment planning system and method for radiotherapy
US7801271B2 (en) 2007-12-23 2010-09-21 Oraya Therapeutics, Inc. Methods and devices for orthovoltage ocular radiotherapy and treatment planning
US7792249B2 (en) 2007-12-23 2010-09-07 Oraya Therapeutics, Inc. Methods and devices for detecting, controlling, and predicting radiation delivery
WO2010025372A2 (en) * 2008-08-28 2010-03-04 Tomotherapy Incorporated System and method of contouring a target area
US9907979B2 (en) * 2008-09-09 2018-03-06 Varian Medical Systems International Ag Apparatus and method to facilitate adapting a radiation treatment plan
DE102008053611A1 (en) 2008-10-27 2010-05-06 Gsi Helmholtzzentrum Für Schwerionenforschung Gmbh Irradiation of a target volume taking into account a volume to be protected
US7986768B2 (en) * 2009-02-19 2011-07-26 Varian Medical Systems International Ag Apparatus and method to facilitate generating a treatment plan for irradiating a patient's treatment volume
US20100228116A1 (en) * 2009-03-03 2010-09-09 Weiguo Lu System and method of optimizing a heterogeneous radiation dose to be delivered to a patient
JP2012522790A (en) 2009-03-31 2012-09-27 ウィッテン,マシュー,アール. Composition and method of use
WO2011053802A2 (en) * 2009-10-30 2011-05-05 Tomotherapy Incorporated Non-voxel-based broad-beam (nvbb) algorithm for intensity modulated radiation therapy dose calculation and plan optimization
US8492735B2 (en) * 2010-05-27 2013-07-23 Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories, Inc. Method for optimization radiotherapy particle beams
US10561861B2 (en) 2012-05-02 2020-02-18 Viewray Technologies, Inc. Videographic display of real-time medical treatment
EP2911745B1 (en) 2012-10-26 2019-08-07 ViewRay Technologies, Inc. Assessment and improvement of treatment using imaging of physiological responses to radiation therapy
JP6412020B2 (en) 2013-02-26 2018-10-24 アキュレイ インコーポレイテッド Electromagnetic multi-leaf collimator
US10489556B2 (en) * 2013-03-12 2019-11-26 Varian Medical Systems International Ag Method and apparatus pertaining to automated multi-step radiation-treatment plan development
US9446263B2 (en) 2013-03-15 2016-09-20 Viewray Technologies, Inc. Systems and methods for linear accelerator radiotherapy with magnetic resonance imaging
EP3137166A1 (en) * 2014-04-30 2017-03-08 Stc.Unm Optimization methods for radiation therapy planning
JP6444203B2 (en) * 2015-02-16 2018-12-26 株式会社日立製作所 Particle beam treatment planning apparatus and particle beam irradiation simulation method
US10252081B2 (en) 2015-09-25 2019-04-09 Varian Medical Systems International Ag Apparatus and method using automatic generation of a base dose
KR20180120705A (en) 2016-03-02 2018-11-06 뷰레이 테크놀로지스 인크. Particle therapy using magnetic resonance imaging
US9855445B2 (en) 2016-04-01 2018-01-02 Varian Medical Systems, Inc. Radiation therapy systems and methods for delivering doses to a target volume
AU2017281519A1 (en) 2016-06-22 2019-01-24 Viewray Technologies, Inc. Magnetic resonance imaging at low field strength
US10806409B2 (en) 2016-09-23 2020-10-20 Varian Medical Systems International Ag Medical systems with patient supports
CN110382049A (en) 2016-12-13 2019-10-25 优瑞技术公司 Radiotherapy system and method
US10092774B1 (en) 2017-07-21 2018-10-09 Varian Medical Systems International, AG Dose aspects of radiation therapy planning and treatment
US10843011B2 (en) 2017-07-21 2020-11-24 Varian Medical Systems, Inc. Particle beam gun control systems and methods
US10549117B2 (en) 2017-07-21 2020-02-04 Varian Medical Systems, Inc Geometric aspects of radiation therapy planning and treatment
US11590364B2 (en) 2017-07-21 2023-02-28 Varian Medical Systems International Ag Material inserts for radiation therapy
US11712579B2 (en) 2017-07-21 2023-08-01 Varian Medical Systems, Inc. Range compensators for radiation therapy
US11007381B2 (en) 2017-11-16 2021-05-18 Varian Medical Systems, Inc Increased beam output and dynamic field shaping for radiotherapy system
US11033758B2 (en) 2017-12-06 2021-06-15 Viewray Technologies, Inc. Radiotherapy systems, methods and software
JP7075767B2 (en) * 2018-01-31 2022-05-26 住友重機械工業株式会社 Treatment planning device for neutron capture therapy
EP3530318A1 (en) * 2018-02-21 2019-08-28 Elekta Limited Methods for inverse planning
US11209509B2 (en) 2018-05-16 2021-12-28 Viewray Technologies, Inc. Resistive electromagnet systems and methods
KR102068755B1 (en) 2018-06-05 2020-01-21 재단법인 아산사회복지재단 Device, method and program for providing the plan of brachytherapy, and brachytherapy apparatus
US10910188B2 (en) 2018-07-25 2021-02-02 Varian Medical Systems, Inc. Radiation anode target systems and methods
WO2020023961A1 (en) * 2018-07-27 2020-01-30 Munbodh Reshma Computer-implemented method of evaluating a protocol for radiation therapy
US11116995B2 (en) 2019-03-06 2021-09-14 Varian Medical Systems, Inc. Radiation treatment planning based on dose rate
US10814144B2 (en) 2019-03-06 2020-10-27 Varian Medical Systems, Inc. Radiation treatment based on dose rate
US11103727B2 (en) 2019-03-08 2021-08-31 Varian Medical Systems International Ag Model based PBS optimization for flash therapy treatment planning and oncology information system
US11090508B2 (en) 2019-03-08 2021-08-17 Varian Medical Systems Particle Therapy Gmbh & Co. Kg System and method for biological treatment planning and decision support
US10918886B2 (en) 2019-06-10 2021-02-16 Varian Medical Systems, Inc. Flash therapy treatment planning and oncology information system having dose rate prescription and dose rate mapping
US11291859B2 (en) 2019-10-03 2022-04-05 Varian Medical Systems, Inc. Radiation treatment planning for delivering high dose rates to spots in a target
US11865361B2 (en) 2020-04-03 2024-01-09 Varian Medical Systems, Inc. System and method for scanning pattern optimization for flash therapy treatment planning
US11541252B2 (en) 2020-06-23 2023-01-03 Varian Medical Systems, Inc. Defining dose rate for pencil beam scanning

Citations (5)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US5602892A (en) * 1996-03-21 1997-02-11 Llacer; Jorge Method for optimization of radiation therapy planning
US5647663A (en) * 1996-01-05 1997-07-15 Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation Radiation treatment planning method and apparatus
US5661773A (en) * 1992-03-19 1997-08-26 Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation Interface for radiation therapy machine
WO1997032630A1 (en) * 1996-03-05 1997-09-12 The Regents Of The University Of California Calculation of radiation therapy dose using all particle monte carlo transport
WO1998017349A1 (en) * 1996-10-24 1998-04-30 Nomos Corporation Planning method and apparatus for radiation dosimetry

Family Cites Families (3)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US5027818A (en) * 1987-12-03 1991-07-02 University Of Florida Dosimetric technique for stereotactic radiosurgery same
US5291404A (en) * 1990-04-18 1994-03-01 Mitsubishi Denki Kabushiki Kaisha Radiotherapy treatment planning system
US5341292A (en) * 1992-06-04 1994-08-23 New England Medical Center Hospitals, Inc. Monte Carlo based treatment planning for neutron capture therapy

Patent Citations (6)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US5661773A (en) * 1992-03-19 1997-08-26 Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation Interface for radiation therapy machine
US5647663A (en) * 1996-01-05 1997-07-15 Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation Radiation treatment planning method and apparatus
WO1997032630A1 (en) * 1996-03-05 1997-09-12 The Regents Of The University Of California Calculation of radiation therapy dose using all particle monte carlo transport
US5870697A (en) 1996-03-05 1999-02-09 The Regents Of The University Of California Calculation of radiation therapy dose using all particle Monte Carlo transport
US5602892A (en) * 1996-03-21 1997-02-11 Llacer; Jorge Method for optimization of radiation therapy planning
WO1998017349A1 (en) * 1996-10-24 1998-04-30 Nomos Corporation Planning method and apparatus for radiation dosimetry

Cited By (66)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US6477229B1 (en) 2000-05-12 2002-11-05 Siemens Medical Solutions Usa, Inc. Radiation therapy planning
GB2367472B (en) * 2000-05-12 2004-06-09 Siemens Medical Systems Inc Radiation therapy planning
GB2367472A (en) * 2000-05-12 2002-04-03 Siemens Medical Systems Inc Radiation therapy planning and dose optimisation
DE10122903B4 (en) * 2000-05-12 2012-04-26 Siemens Medical Solutions Usa, Inc. Radiation therapy planning
WO2002049044A2 (en) * 2000-12-13 2002-06-20 Elekta Ab (Publ) Radiotherapeutic apparatus comprising multileaf collimator
WO2002049044A3 (en) * 2000-12-13 2002-09-19 Elekta Ab Radiotherapeutic apparatus comprising multileaf collimator
US6907105B2 (en) 2001-09-25 2005-06-14 Bc Cancer Agency Methods and apparatus for planning and delivering intensity modulated radiation fields with a rotating multileaf collimator
US9974494B2 (en) 2005-04-29 2018-05-22 Varian Medical Systems, Inc. System and methods for treating patients using radiation
US10004650B2 (en) 2005-04-29 2018-06-26 Varian Medical Systems, Inc. Dynamic patient positioning system
US10881878B2 (en) 2005-04-29 2021-01-05 Varian Medical Systems, Inc. Dynamic patient positioning system
US9498167B2 (en) 2005-04-29 2016-11-22 Varian Medical Systems, Inc. System and methods for treating patients using radiation
US7734010B2 (en) 2005-05-13 2010-06-08 Bc Cancer Agency Method and apparatus for planning and delivering radiation treatment
US9050459B2 (en) 2005-07-25 2015-06-09 Karl Otto Methods and apparatus for the planning and delivery of radiation treatments
US9687676B2 (en) 2005-07-25 2017-06-27 Varian Medical Systems International Ag Methods and apparatus for the planning and delivery of radiation treatments
US7880154B2 (en) 2005-07-25 2011-02-01 Karl Otto Methods and apparatus for the planning and delivery of radiation treatments
US11642027B2 (en) 2005-07-25 2023-05-09 Siemens Healthineers International Ag Methods and apparatus for the planning and delivery of radiation treatments
US8658992B2 (en) 2005-07-25 2014-02-25 Karl Otto Methods and apparatus for the planning and delivery of radiation treatments
US9630025B2 (en) 2005-07-25 2017-04-25 Varian Medical Systems International Ag Methods and apparatus for the planning and delivery of radiation treatments
US9788783B2 (en) 2005-07-25 2017-10-17 Varian Medical Systems International Ag Methods and apparatus for the planning and delivery of radiation treatments
US9687673B2 (en) 2005-07-25 2017-06-27 Varian Medical Systems International Ag Methods and apparatus for the planning and delivery of radiation treatments
US9687675B2 (en) 2005-07-25 2017-06-27 Varian Medical Systems International Ag Methods and apparatus for the planning and delivery of radiation treatments
US8696538B2 (en) 2005-07-25 2014-04-15 Karl Otto Methods and apparatus for the planning and delivery of radiation treatments
US9687678B2 (en) 2005-07-25 2017-06-27 Varian Medical Systems International Ag Methods and apparatus for the planning and delivery of radiation treatments
US9687677B2 (en) 2005-07-25 2017-06-27 Varian Medical Systems International Ag Methods and apparatus for the planning and delivery of radiation treatments
US9687674B2 (en) 2005-07-25 2017-06-27 Varian Medical Systems International Ag Methods and apparatus for the planning and delivery of radiation treatments
US10595774B2 (en) 2005-07-25 2020-03-24 Varian Medical Systems International Methods and apparatus for the planning and delivery of radiation treatments
US7906770B2 (en) 2005-07-25 2011-03-15 Karl Otto Methods and apparatus for the planning and delivery of radiation treatments
US9764159B2 (en) 2005-07-25 2017-09-19 Varian Medical Systems International Ag Methods and apparatus for the planning and delivery of radiation treatments
US8073103B2 (en) 2006-07-27 2011-12-06 British Columbia Cancer Agency Branch Systems and methods for optimization of on-line adaptive radiation therapy
US8699664B2 (en) 2006-07-27 2014-04-15 British Columbia Center Agency Branch Systems and methods for optimization of on-line adaptive radiation therapy
USRE46953E1 (en) 2007-04-20 2018-07-17 University Of Maryland, Baltimore Single-arc dose painting for precision radiation therapy
US11627920B2 (en) 2008-03-14 2023-04-18 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Method and apparatus for emission guided radiation therapy
US10959686B2 (en) 2008-03-14 2021-03-30 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Method and apparatus for emission guided radiation therapy
US9820700B2 (en) 2008-03-14 2017-11-21 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Method and apparatus for emission guided radiation therapy
US10327716B2 (en) 2008-03-14 2019-06-25 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Method and apparatus for emission guided radiation therapy
US10773101B2 (en) 2010-06-22 2020-09-15 Varian Medical Systems International Ag System and method for estimating and manipulating estimated radiation dose
US9649509B2 (en) 2011-03-31 2017-05-16 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Systems and methods for use in emission guided radiation therapy
US10159852B2 (en) 2011-03-31 2018-12-25 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Systems and methods for use in emission guided radiation therapy
US9283403B2 (en) 2011-03-31 2016-03-15 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Systems and methods for use in emission guided radiation therapy
US9694208B2 (en) 2011-03-31 2017-07-04 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Systems and methods for use in emission guided radiation therapy
US11141607B2 (en) 2011-03-31 2021-10-12 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Systems and methods for use in emission guided radiation therapy
US10617890B2 (en) 2011-03-31 2020-04-14 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Systems and methods for use in emission guided radiation therapy
US10695583B2 (en) 2011-03-31 2020-06-30 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Systems and methods for use in emission guided radiation therapy
US10143857B2 (en) 2011-03-31 2018-12-04 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Systems and methods for use in emission guided radiation therapy
US9764161B2 (en) 2011-03-31 2017-09-19 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Systems and methods for use in emission guided radiation therapy
US10500416B2 (en) 2015-06-10 2019-12-10 Reflexion Medical, Inc. High bandwidth binary multi-leaf collimator design
US11878185B2 (en) 2015-06-10 2024-01-23 Reflexion Medical, Inc. High bandwidth binary multi-leaf collimator design
US11285340B2 (en) 2015-06-10 2022-03-29 Reflexion Medical, Inc. High bandwidth binary multi-leaf collimator design
US10918884B2 (en) 2016-03-09 2021-02-16 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Fluence map generation methods for radiotherapy
US10702715B2 (en) 2016-11-15 2020-07-07 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Radiation therapy patient platform
US11794036B2 (en) 2016-11-15 2023-10-24 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Radiation therapy patient platform
US10695586B2 (en) 2016-11-15 2020-06-30 Reflexion Medical, Inc. System for emission-guided high-energy photon delivery
US11406846B2 (en) 2016-11-15 2022-08-09 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Methods for radiation delivery in emission-guided radiotherapy
US11504550B2 (en) 2017-03-30 2022-11-22 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Radiation therapy systems and methods with tumor tracking
US11904184B2 (en) 2017-03-30 2024-02-20 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Radiation therapy systems and methods with tumor tracking
US11675097B2 (en) 2017-07-11 2023-06-13 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Methods for PET detector afterglow management
US11287540B2 (en) 2017-07-11 2022-03-29 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Methods for PET detector afterglow management
US10795037B2 (en) 2017-07-11 2020-10-06 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Methods for pet detector afterglow management
US11007384B2 (en) 2017-08-09 2021-05-18 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Systems and methods for fault detection in emission-guided radiotherapy
US11511133B2 (en) 2017-08-09 2022-11-29 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Systems and methods for fault detection in emission-guided radiotherapy
US10603515B2 (en) 2017-08-09 2020-03-31 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Systems and methods for fault detection in emission-guided radiotherapy
US11369806B2 (en) 2017-11-14 2022-06-28 Reflexion Medical, Inc. Systems and methods for patient monitoring for radiotherapy
WO2019228997A1 (en) * 2018-05-30 2019-12-05 Raysearch Laboratories Ab A method and a corresponding radiation treatment system for facilitating optimization of a multimodal radiation therapy plan
CN112188918A (en) * 2018-05-30 2021-01-05 光线搜索实验室公司 Method for facilitating optimization of a multi-modality radiation therapy plan and corresponding radiation therapy system
US11865363B2 (en) 2018-05-30 2024-01-09 Raysearch Laboratories Ab Method and a corresponding radiation treatment system for facilitating optimization of a multimodal radiation therapy plan
EP3574956A1 (en) * 2018-05-30 2019-12-04 RaySearch Laboratories AB A method and a corresponding radiation treatment system for facilitating optimization of a multimodal radiation therapy plan

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
US6260005B1 (en) 2001-07-10
CA2343210C (en) 2005-01-11
JP2006142043A (en) 2006-06-08
AU6033199A (en) 2000-04-03
CA2343210A1 (en) 2000-03-23
EP1119395A1 (en) 2001-08-01
JP2003534823A (en) 2003-11-25

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
US6260005B1 (en) Falcon: automated optimization method for arbitrary assessment criteria
Shepard et al. Optimizing the delivery of radiation therapy to cancer patients
US5870697A (en) Calculation of radiation therapy dose using all particle Monte Carlo transport
Lim et al. Iterative solution methods for beam angle and fluence map optimization in intensity modulated radiation therapy planning
AU757570B2 (en) Method for preparing a radiation therapy plan
Södertröm et al. Optimization of the dose delivery in a few field techniques using radiobiological objective functions
Oldham et al. The optimization and inherent limitations of 3D conformal radiotherapy treatment plans of the prostate
WO2019090429A1 (en) Radiation treatment planning with multiple target subset optimization
WO2019213743A1 (en) Systems and methods for planning, controlling and/or delivering radiotherapy and radiosurgery using combined optimization of dynamic axes (coda)
Rezaee Design of spread-out Bragg peaks in hadron therapy with oxygen ions
Ferris et al. Radiation treatment planning: Mixed integer programming formulations and approaches
Lahanas et al. Intensity modulated beam radiation therapy dose optimization with multiobjective evolutionary algorithms
Webb Optimizing radiation therapy inverse treatment planning using the simulated annealing technique
Jia et al. OAR dose distribution prediction and gEUD based automatic treatment planning optimization for intensity modulated radiotherapy
Xing et al. Physics of IMRT
Rocha et al. An optimization approach for noncoplanar intensity-modulated arc therapy trajectories
Ghanbarzadeh et al. The scatter search based algorithm for beam angle optimization in intensity-modulated radiation therapy
JP2023528963A (en) Radiation therapy system and method for generating a treatment plan therefor
Ilić et al. The Monte Carlo SRNA-VOX code for 3D proton dose distribution in voxelized geometry using CT data
Del Nero et al. Validating a virtual source model based in Monte Carlo method for profiles and percent depth doses calculation
Janson et al. Treatment planning of scanned proton beams in RayStation
Parodi Monte Carlo methods for dose calculations
Dhanesar Conformal radiation therapy with cobalt-60 tomotherapy
Khedriliraviasl Geometry-based Constraint Generation for Large-scale Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning
Alijani Monte Carlo simulations of X-ray sources by machine learning approaches

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
AK Designated states

Kind code of ref document: A1

Designated state(s): AE AL AM AT AU AZ BA BB BG BR BY CA CH CN CR CU CZ DE DK DM EE ES FI GB GD GE GH GM HR HU ID IL IN IS JP KE KG KP KR KZ LC LK LR LS LT LU LV MD MG MK MN MW MX NO NZ PL PT RO RU SD SE SG SI SK SL TJ TM TR TT UA UG UZ VN YU ZA ZW

AL Designated countries for regional patents

Kind code of ref document: A1

Designated state(s): GH GM KE LS MW SD SL SZ UG ZW AM AZ BY KG KZ MD RU TJ TM AT BE CH CY DE DK ES FI FR GB GR IE IT LU MC NL PT SE BF BJ CF CG CI CM GA GN GW ML MR NE SN TD TG

DFPE Request for preliminary examination filed prior to expiration of 19th month from priority date (pct application filed before 20040101)
121 Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application
WWE Wipo information: entry into national phase

Ref document number: 1999969041

Country of ref document: EP

ENP Entry into the national phase

Ref document number: 2343210

Country of ref document: CA

Ref country code: CA

Ref document number: 2343210

Kind code of ref document: A

Format of ref document f/p: F

ENP Entry into the national phase

Ref country code: JP

Ref document number: 2000 569883

Kind code of ref document: A

Format of ref document f/p: F

REG Reference to national code

Ref country code: DE

Ref legal event code: 8642

WWP Wipo information: published in national office

Ref document number: 1999969041

Country of ref document: EP

WWW Wipo information: withdrawn in national office

Ref document number: 1999969041

Country of ref document: EP