The number of beams in IMRT - theoretical investigations and implications for single-arc IMRT

TL;DR

This paper uses mathematical modeling to determine the optimal number of beams in IMRT, showing that 10-20 beams suffice and providing a theoretical basis for VMAT's effectiveness.

Contribution

It introduces analytical expressions linking dose variability to the number of beams needed in IMRT and justifies VMAT through theoretical analysis.

Findings

Optimal number of beams is 10-20 for realistic dose variability

Using more beams does not improve dose quality

VMAT's beam fan-out effect is analytically characterized

Abstract

The first purpose of this paper is to shed some new light on the old question of selecting the number of beams in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). The second purpose is to illuminate the related issue of discrete static beam angles vs. rotational techniques, which has recently re-surfaced due to the advancement of volumetric arc therapy (VMAT). A specific objective is to find analytical expressions that allow one to address the points raised above. To make the problem mathematically tractable, it is assumed that the depth dose is flat and that the lateral dose profile can be approximated by polynomials, specifically Chebyshev polynomials of the first kind, of finite degree. The application of methods known from image reconstruction then allows one to answer the first question above as follows: The required number of beams is determined by the maximum degree of the polynomials used in the approximation of the beam profiles, which is a measure of the dose variability. There is nothing to be gained by using more beams. In realistic cases, in which the variability of the lateral dose profile is restricted in several ways, the required number of beams is of the order of 10 to 20. The consequence of delivering the beams with a `leaf sweep' technique during continuous rotation of the gantry, as in VMAT, is also derived in analytical form. The main effect is that the beams fan out, but the effect near the axis of rotation is small. This result can serve as a theoretical justification of VMAT. Overall the analytical derivations in this paper, albeit based on strong simplifications, provide new insights into, and a deeper understanding of, the beam angle problem in IMRT.