Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 50 references

A K-adaptability Approach to Proton Radiation Therapy Robust Treatment Planning

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Precomputing K treatment plans instead of one robust plan lifts worst-case tumor dose, with an average gain of 4.52 Gy across five head-and-neck proton therapy cases and a proof that the underlying optimization problem is NP-hard.

desk verdict The continuous-variable NP-hardness result and the clustering heuristic are worthwhile, but the reported dosimetric gains may be inflated because the assignment MIPs ignore feasibility constraints. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.07368 v1 pith:NZAADC7K submitted 2025-08-10 math.OC

Zihang Qiu , Ali Ajdari , Mislav Bobić , Thomas Bortfeld , Dick den Hertog , Jannis Kurtz , Hoyeon Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 90C4790C1192C50
keywords K-adaptabilityrobustoptimizationprotontherapytreatmentplanningmin-max-minscenarioclusteringsetupuncertaintyrange
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the standard min-max robust approach to proton therapy planning is unnecessarily conservative, and that a K-adaptability approach—where several plans are computed in advance and the best one is selected after the uncertainty is revealed—can improve worst-case tumor coverage. The authors propose a heuristic that clusters uncertainty scenarios by plan performance, generate robust plans for each cluster, then re-assign plans to scenarios. On five head-and-neck patients, the heuristic improved worst-case CTV Dmin by on average 4.52 Gy compared to the conventional single robust plan, and it needed only about 15 plans on average to reach the maximum worst-case performance across a 57-scenario uncertainty set. The paper also proves that the continuous-variable K-adaptability problem (3) is NP-hard, so exact solution is not a realistic route for this application.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the scenario-to-plan assignment based on plan-scenario performance. Two MIP problems are used: the first minimizes the worst-case objective by selecting which K solutions to use and how to assign each uncertainty scenario to a selected solution; the second, given the optimal worst-case value, refines the assignment to also optimize the scenario-average objective, achieving Pareto robust optimality. The iterative solution-generation phase starts with one nominal plan per scenario, clusters scenarios by the MIPs, generates robust plans for each cluster, and adds them to a global pool; the re-distribution phase then re-selects the best K plans from the full pool. The cluste

What would settle it

For the same five head-and-neck patients, acquire daily CT or cone-beam CT images across the treatment course, compute the delivered CTV Dmin for the conventionally robust plan and for the K-adaptability plan set (selecting the best plan per day), and compare the actual worst-case tumor coverage; if K-adaptability does not improve or worsens the coverage relative to the single robust plan on this real anatomical data, the paper's central dosimetric claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for proton therapy robust planning with a discrete uncertainty set, the min-max-min K-adaptability problem—though phrased with continuous decision variables and a very specific clinical structure—remains NP-hard (Theorem 1, proven by reduction from the hitting set problem). On the algorithmic side, the paper's scenario-clustering heuristic, which assigns scenarios to solutions based on the objective value each plan achieves on each scenario, produces a set of K plans whose worst-case CTV Dmin is substantially better than that of a conventional single robust plan. Across five head-and-neck patients, the worst-case CTV Dmin improved by 4.52 Gy on average at K = 57 (wi

Load-bearing premise

The 57-scenario uncertainty set (3 mm setup shifts in 19 directions plus ±3% range errors) is treated as a valid surrogate for the anatomical changes that actually occur during a course of proton therapy, and the evaluation is performed on that same training set rather than on daily temporal images.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the K-adaptability results hold in clinical practice, multi-plan adaptive treatment could become a viable alternative to single robust plans, with better worst-case tumor coverage without changing the physics of proton delivery.
  • The measured saturation K value of about 15 on average indicates that achieving the maximum worst-case performance may require far fewer than the full 57 uncertainty scenarios, which is useful for planning quality-assurance workloads.
  • The order in which solutions are generated matters: the descending-K strategy outperforms the ascending strategy, suggesting that including less conservative plans from higher K in the pool helps clustering at low K.
  • The heuristic is presented as a general-purpose method for discrete uncertainty robust optimization, so it could be transferred to other domains such as logistics or knapsack problems that use min-max-min robustness.
  • The NP-hardness result implies that exact algorithms will not scale to clinically sized problems, making efficient heuristics the practical path for K-adaptability in treatment planning.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next test the authors leave implicit is evaluating K-adaptability on daily repeated CT or cone-beam CT images, since the current results are computed on the same simulated uncertainty set used for training; if real anatomical changes differ from the 57 setup/range scenarios, the reported 4.52 Gy gain may not translate directly.
  • The performance-based clustering principle could also be applied to photon therapy or online adaptive radiotherapy, where plan selection per fraction is already a clinical workflow.
  • The saturation K estimate of about 15 plans suggests that, with automated QA, a manageable number of precomputed plans might cover the practical uncertainty space, which could change the logistics of adaptive proton therapy.
  • Because the NP-hardness proof is a reduction from hitting set, any exact method would need to exploit further clinical structure—such as the specific dose-influence matrix sparsity—rather than relying on generic continuous optimization.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a K-adaptability heuristic for robust proton therapy treatment planning under discrete setup and range uncertainty. The optimization model is a min-max-min problem in which K treatment plans are computed in advance and, after the uncertainty scenario is realized, the best feasible plan among the K is selected. The paper proves that the continuous-variable K-adaptability problem (Problem (3)) is NP-hard, then develops a two-phase heuristic: a solution generation phase that clusters scenarios on the basis of plan-scenario objective values using two MIPs (Problems (5) and (6)), and a re-distribution phase that re-assigns all generated solutions to scenarios. The method is evaluated on five head-and-neck patients with 57 uncertainty scenarios and compared with conventional robust optimization, two variants of the proposed heuristic, and K-medoids. The paper reports an average worst-case CTV Dmin improvement of 4.52 Gy at K=57, and a lower saturation K than the competing clustering methods.

Significance. If the numerical results are valid, the paper would make a useful contribution: it provides the first NP-hardness proof for the continuous-variable K-adaptability problem in this application, and it proposes a general heuristic for min-max-min robust optimization with discrete uncertainty sets that is more principled than generic clustering. The NP-hardness reduction in Section 2.3 is logically sound (up to typos), and the idea of clustering scenarios by plan-scenario objective values is sensible. However, the central dosimetric claim depends on a computationally questionable step: the assignment MIPs in Section 3.2 ignore the feasibility restrictions that appear in Problem (3). In addition, the abstract's claim of time-efficiency superiority is contradicted by Table 5, and the clinical evaluation is limited to the training uncertainty set, as the authors acknowledge in Section 6. No code or data are provided, so independent replication of the 4.52 Gy result is not currently possible.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (5)-(6)] Problems (5) and (6) drop the feasibility restriction that is explicit in Problem (3). The inner minimization of (3) is over plans i satisfying g_k(D x_i) ≤ 0 for all k, but the MIPs define v_ij = f(D_j x_i) and enforce only assignment and cardinality constraints. A plan generated for one cluster is guaranteed feasible only for scenarios in that cluster (via Problem (2)); it need not satisfy the max/mean-dose constraints of Table 2 for scenarios outside the cluster. The MIPs can therefore assign an infeasible plan-scenario pair if doing so improves the objective, and the re-distribution phase (Section 3.4) performs no feasibility check. Section 4.1's observation that including only overdose constraints makes Problem (2) feasible is insufficient: it ensures some feasible plan exists (e.g., x=0), not that every generated plan is feasible for every scenario. Consequently, the worst-case CTV
  2. [Abstract; Section 5.2, Table 5; Section 7] The abstract and the conclusion state that the developed heuristic is superior in 'time-efficiency' to the competing methods. Table 5 shows average runtimes of 45,256 s for AOSG and 46,592 s for K-medoids, versus 65,314 s for the proposed K-adaptability heuristic; the proposed method is faster only than the LSP variant (83,766 s). Please correct the claim in the abstract and Section 7 to reflect that the proposed heuristic is not the most time-efficient among the tested methods.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (4) and proof of Theorem 1] There are indexing typos in Eq. (4): the summation index in the objective should be over j, not i, and the dose-matrix entries should carry the scenario index l (e.g., D^l_jj). The proof text also writes x_i^i ambiguously; it should be x^i_i or x(i)_i. The reduction is otherwise understandable.
  2. [Section 2.2] The text says 'the brainstem should receive at most 57 Gy of dose, D_min^Brainstem ≤ 57 Gy.' This should be D_max (or an upper-bound constraint), not D_min.
  3. [Section 4.1] The sentence 'Figure 1 contains the information on the voxel number...' should refer to Table 1, which is where the patient ROI and beamlet numbers are presented.
  4. [Algorithm B.1] The while loops in Algorithm B.1 are written as 'while K ≥ 1' with K incremented by 1, which does not terminate. The loops should be 'while K ≤ |U|' in both Phase 1 and Phase 2.
  5. [Figure 3 caption] The caption says 'Worst-case dose distribution of case four,' but the figure is a plot of worst-case CTV Dmin versus K. The caption should be corrected.
  6. [Abstract] The phrase 'increased the worst-case CTV Dmin dose up to 4.52 Gy on average' is ambiguous. It should specify that this is the average gain at K=57 (and that at K=2-5 the gains are smaller).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the NP-hardness proof is self-contained and the heuristic is evaluated on the objective it optimizes without fitted parameters; self-citations are background, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Theorem 1 is proved by an explicit polynomial-time reduction from the hitting set problem; it does not rely on the authors' prior NP-hardness results for binary-variable min-max-min problems, which are cited only as background. The K-adaptability heuristic optimizes the same min-max-min objective it reports, but this is standard for an optimization heuristic and does not involve fitting a parameter to the reported CTV Dmin improvements: the uncertainty scenarios, QUANTEC constraints, and dose-influence matrices are external clinical/technical inputs. The K=57 reference point is explicitly a definitional upper bound because each scenario is paired with its nominal plan, and the paper honestly states that evaluation is on the training uncertainty set with temporal-image testing as future work. The multiple self-citations to Buchheim/Kurtz and Kurtz are survey/background citations and do not carry the numerical or algorithmic claims. A separate, non-circularity concern is that MIPs (5)-(6) use v_ij = f(D_j x_i) without checking the g_k(D_j x_i) <= 0 feasibility conditions of Problem (3), which may make the reported worst-case values optimistic; this is a correctness/feasibility risk, not a circular reduction, and does not by itself raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claim rests on the scenario-generation assumptions and the exclusion of underdose constraints; no fitted numeric parameters are used in the objective. The only hand-chosen parameter is K, which shapes the headline improvement. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • K (number of adaptability plans) = K = 1..57 in experiments; headline gain 4.52 Gy at K=57, K=5 gain 2.57 Gy; heuristic saturation K ~ 15 on average
    The reported improvement depends on the hand-chosen K; it is an algorithmic input, not fitted to the outcomes, but it is central to how the headline number is framed.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Hitting set problem is NP-hard (Garey and Johnson 2002)
    Basis of the reduction in Theorem 1.
  • domain assumption Uncertainty scenarios are dose-influence matrices from 3 mm setup shifts in 19 directions and +/-3%/0% range errors, with nominal scenario always included
    Section 4.1; these magnitudes come from clinical convention, not from the patient data, and they define the discrete set U used for all reported numbers.
  • domain assumption Only overdose-type constraints are included in the treatment planning model
    Section 2.2 states only overdose constraints are used to guarantee feasibility; this deviates from typical protocols that also enforce CTV underdose constraints, though the objective maximizes CTV minimum dose.
  • domain assumption The assignment MIPs (5) and (6) can be solved to optimality by Gurobi at every iteration
    Section 4.1; no optimality tolerances for the final K-adaptability value are reported, and solution pool growth could make exact MIP solving a bottleneck.
  • domain assumption Cluster-based robust solutions solve problem (2) for each cluster exactly via Nymph
    Section 4.1; the reported worst-case values assume Nymph returns a true optimum for each cluster's robust problem.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A K-adaptability Approach to Proton Radiation Therapy Robust Treatment Planning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NZAADC7K

@misc{pith2026250807368,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A K-adaptability Approach to Proton Radiation Therapy Robust Treatment Planning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NZAADC7K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.07368}
}
read the original abstract

Uncertainties such as setup and range errors can significantly compromise proton therapy. A discrete uncertainty set is often constructed to represent different uncertainty scenarios. A min-max robust optimization approach is then utilized to optimize the worst-case performance of a radiation therapy plan against the uncertainty set. However, the min-max approach can be too conservative as a single plan has to account for the entire uncertainty set. K-adaptability is a novel approach to robust optimization which covers the uncertainty set with multiple (K) solutions, reducing the conservativeness. Solving K-adaptability to optimality is known to be computationally intractable. To that end, we developed a novel and efficient K-adaptability heuristic that iteratively clusters the scenarios based on plan-scenario performance for the proton radiation therapy planning problem. Compared to the conventional robust solution, the developed K-adaptability heuristic increased the worst-case CTV Dmin dose up to 4.52 Gy on average across five head and neck patients. The developed heuristic also demonstrated its superiority in objective value and time-efficiency compared to the competing methods we tested.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.07368 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Graphical illustration of the proposed 𝐾-adaptability heuristic with four uncertainty scenarios. A blue square denotes an uncertainty scenario, an orange triangle denotes a treatment plan, 𝑤𝑖 𝑗∗ and 𝑪 ∗ 𝑖 𝑗 denote the worst-case objective value and scenario clusters obtained for 𝐾 = 𝑖 at iteration 𝑗. MIP and RO are acronyms of mixed-integer programming problem and robust optimization. 3 𝒰 4 1 2 3 4 Iteration 1 MIPs … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Worst-case dose distribution of case four. Upper left and right figures are the dose distributions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Size of the cluster that contains the worst-case scenario vs K. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    N., Poss, M., and Silva, M

    Arslan, A. N., Poss, M., and Silva, M. (2022). Min-sup-min robust combinatorial optimization with few recourse solutions. INFORMS Journal on Computing , 34(4):2212--2228

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    M., Constine, L

    Bentzen, S. M., Constine, L. S., Deasy, J. O., Eisbruch, A., Jackson, A., Marks, L. B., Ten Haken, R. K., and Yorke, E. D. (2010). Quantitative analyses of normal tissue effects in the clinic (quantec): An introduction to the scientific issues. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics , 76(3):S3--S9

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Bertschi, S., Stützer, K., Berthold, J., Pietsch, J., Smeets, J., Janssens, G., and Richter, C. (2023). Potential margin reduction in prostate cancer proton therapy with prompt gamma imaging for online treatment verification. Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology , 26:100447

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    and Caramanis, C

    Bertsimas, D. and Caramanis, C. (2010). Finite adaptability in multistage linear optimization. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , 55(12):2751 – 2766

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    and den Hertog, D

    Bertsimas, D. and den Hertog, D. (2022). Robust and Adaptive Optimization . Dynamic Ideas LLC

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Bortfeld, T., Chan, T. C. Y., Trofimov, A., and Tsitsiklis, J. N. (2008). Robust management of motion uncertainty in intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Operations Research , 56(6):1461--1473

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    and Tomé, W

    Brodin, N. and Tomé, W. A. (2018). Revisiting the dose constraints for head and neck oars in the current era of imrt. Oral Oncology , 86:8--18

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    and Kurtz, J

    Buchheim, C. and Kurtz, J. (2016). Min-max-min robustness: a new approach to combinatorial optimization under uncertainty based on multiple solutions. Electronic Notes in Discrete Mathematics , 52:45--52

    work page 2016

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    and Kurtz, J

    Buchheim, C. and Kurtz, J. (2017). Min--max--min robust combinatorial optimization. Mathematical Programming , 163:1--23

    2017

  2. [10]

    and Kurtz, J

    Buchheim, C. and Kurtz, J. (2018). Complexity of min--max--min robustness for combinatorial optimization under discrete uncertainty. Discrete Optimization , 28:1--15

    2018

  3. [11]

    and Pruente, J

    Buchheim, C. and Pruente, J. (2019). K-adaptability in stochastic combinatorial optimization under objective uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research , 277(3):953--963

    2019

  4. [12]

    M., Cohilis, M., Lee, J

    Buti, G., Souris, K., Barragán Montero, A. M., Cohilis, M., Lee, J. A., and Sterpin, E. (2020). A ccelerated robust optimization algorithm for proton therapy treatment planning . Medical Physics , 47(7):2746--2754

    2020

  5. [13]

    C., Bortfeld, T., and Tsitsiklis, J

    Chan, T. C., Bortfeld, T., and Tsitsiklis, J. N. (2006). A robust approach to I M R T optimization . Physics in Medicine & Biology , 51(10):2567--2583

    2006

  6. [14]

    and Goerigk, M

    Chassein, A. and Goerigk, M. (2021). On the complexity of min--max--min robustness with two alternatives and budgeted uncertainty. Discrete Applied Mathematics , 296:141--163

    2021

  7. [15]

    Chassein, A., Goerigk, M., Kurtz, J., and Poss, M. (2019). Faster algorithms for min-max-min robustness for combinatorial problems with budgeted uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research , 279(2):308--319

    2019

  8. [16]

    Crema, A. (2020). Min max min robust (relative) regret combinatorial optimization. Mathematical Methods of Operations Research , 92(2):249--283

    2020

  9. [17]

    C., Ehrbar, S., Engin-Deniz, G., Giger, A., Josipovic, M., Jud, C., Krieger, M., Nguyen, D., Persson, G

    Duetschler, A., Bauman, G., Bieri, O., Cattin, P. C., Ehrbar, S., Engin-Deniz, G., Giger, A., Josipovic, M., Jud, C., Krieger, M., Nguyen, D., Persson, G. F., Salomir, R., Weber, D. C., Lomax, A. J., and Zhang, Y. (2022). S ynthetic 4 D C T ( M R I ) lung phantom generation fo...

    2022

  10. [18]

    Fredriksson, A., Forsgren, A., and Hårdemark, B. (2011). Minimax optimization for handling range and setup uncertainties in proton therapy. Medical Physics , 38(3):1672--1684

    2011

  11. [19]

    V., Thummerer, A., Langendijk, J

    Galapon Jr, A. V., Thummerer, A., Langendijk, J. A., Wagenaar, D., and Both, S. (2024). Feasibility of monte carlo dropout-based uncertainty maps to evaluate deep learning-based synthetic cts for adaptive proton therapy. Medical Physics , 51(4):2499--2509

    2024

  12. [20]

    Garey, M. R. and Johnson, D. S. (2002). Computers and intractability , volume 29. wh freeman New York

    2002

  13. [21]

    Garuba, F., Goerigk, M., and Jacko, P. (2024). A comparison of discrete and polyhedral uncertainty sets for robust network design. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.10507

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Ghahtarani, A., Saif, A., Ghasemi, A., and Delage, E. (2023). A double-oracle, logic-based benders decomposition approach to solve the k-adaptability problem. Computers & Operations Research , 155:106243

    2023

  15. [23]

    and Khosravi, M

    Goerigk, M. and Khosravi, M. (2024). Benchmarking problems for robust discrete optimization. Computers & Operations Research , 166:106608

    2024

  16. [24]

    Goerigk, M., Kurtz, J., and Poss, M. (2020). Min--max--min robustness for combinatorial problems with discrete budgeted uncertainty. Discrete Applied Mathematics , 285:707--725

    2020

  17. [25]

    Gorissen, B. L. (2022). Interior point methods can exploit structure of convex piecewise linear functions with application in radiation therapy. SIAM Journal on Optimization , 32(1):256--275

    2022

  18. [26]

    A., Kuhn, D., and Wiesemann, W

    Hanasusanto, G. A., Kuhn, D., and Wiesemann, W. (2015). K-adaptability in two-stage robust binary programming. Operations Research , 63(4):877--891

    2015

  19. [27]

    A., Kuhn, D., and Wiesemann, W

    Hanasusanto, G. A., Kuhn, D., and Wiesemann, W. (2016). K-adaptability in two-stage distributionally robust binary programming. Operations Research Letters , 44(1):6--11

    2016

  20. [28]

    Iancu, D. A. and Trichakis, N. (2014). Pareto efficiency in robust optimization. Management Science , 60(1):130--147

    2014

  21. [29]

    and Han, J

    Jin, X. and Han, J. (2010). K-Medoids Clustering , pages 564--565. Springer US, Boston, MA

    2010

  22. [30]

    Julien, E., Postek, K., and Birbil, S . \.I . (2025). Machine learning for k-adaptability in two-stage robust optimization. INFORMS Journal on Computing , 37(3):644--665

    2025

  23. [31]

    Kurtz, J. (2021). Approximation algorithms for min-max-min robust optimization and k-adaptability under objective uncertainty. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.03107

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Kurtz, J. (2024). How many policies do we need in k -adaptability for two-stage robust integer optimization? arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12630

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    A., and Wrabetz, L

    Lamperski, J., Prokopyev, O. A., and Wrabetz, L. G. (2023). Min-max-min optimization with smooth and strongly convex objectives. SIAM Journal on Optimization , 33(3):2435--2456

    2023

  26. [34]

    M., Bobić, M., Winey, B., Schuemann, J., and Paganetti, H

    Lee, H., Shin, J., Verburg, J. M., Bobić, M., Winey, B., Schuemann, J., and Paganetti, H. (2022). Moqui: an open-source gpu-based monte carlo code for proton dose calculation with efficient data structure. Physics in Medicine & Biology , 67(17):174001

    2022

  27. [35]

    Lomax, A. J. (2019). Myths and realities of range uncertainty. British Journal of Radiology , 93(1107):20190582

    2019

  28. [36]

    Malaguti, E., Monaci, M., and Pruente, J. (2022). K-adaptability in stochastic optimization. Mathematical Programming , 196(1):567--595

    2022

  29. [37]

    C., Free, J., Bondesson, D., Seller Oria, C., Rabe, M., Parodi, K., Landry, G., Langendijk, J

    Meijers, A., Seller, O. C., Free, J., Bondesson, D., Seller Oria, C., Rabe, M., Parodi, K., Landry, G., Langendijk, J. A., Both, S., Kurz, C., and Knopf, A. (2020). Assessment of range uncertainty in lung-like tissue using a porcine lung phantom and proton radiography. Physics...

    2020

  30. [38]

    P., Bobić, M., Lalonde, A., Winey, B

    Nesteruk, K. P., Bobić, M., Lalonde, A., Winey, B. A., Lomax, A. J., and Paganetti, H. (2021). Ct-on-rails versus in-room cbct for online daily adaptive proton therapy of head-and-neck cancers. Cancers , 13(23):5991

    2021

  31. [39]

    S., Marmitt, G

    Oria, C. S., Marmitt, G. G., Both, S., Langendijk, J. A., Knopf, A. C., and Meijers, A. (2020). Classification of various sources of error in range assessment using proton radiography and neural networks in head and neck cancer patients. Physics in Medicine & Biology , 65(23):235009

    2020

  32. [40]

    Paradiso, R., Georghiou, A., Dabia, S., and Tönissen, D. (2022). Exact and approximate schemes for robust optimization problems with decision dependent information discovery. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.04115

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    and Jun, C.-H

    Park, H.-S. and Jun, C.-H. (2009). A simple and fast algorithm for k-medoids clustering. Expert Systems with Applications , 36(2, Part 2):3336--3341

    2009

  34. [42]

    H., Durante, M., and Graeff, C

    Quarz, A., Volz, L., Antink, C. H., Durante, M., and Graeff, C. (2024). D eep learning-based voxel sampling for particle therapy treatment planning . Physics in Medicine & Biology , 69(15):155014

    2024

  35. [43]

    Song, X., Lewis, R., Thompson, J., and Wu, Y. (2012). An incomplete m-exchange algorithm for solving the large-scale multi-scenario knapsack problem. Computers & Operations Research , 39(9):1988--2000

    2012

  36. [44]

    E., and Wiesemann, W

    Subramanyam, A., Gounaris, C. E., and Wiesemann, W. (2020). K-adaptability in two-stage mixed-integer robust optimization. Mathematical Programming Computation , 12:193--224

    2020

  37. [45]

    Taasti, V. T., Decabooter, E., Eekers, D., Compter, I., Rinaldi, I., Bogowicz, M., van der Maas, T., Kneepkens, E., Schiffelers, J., Stultiens, C., Hendrix, N., Pijls, M., Emmah, R., Fonseca, G. P., Unipan, M., and van Elmpt, W. (2023). Clinical benefit of range uncertainty re...

    2023

  38. [46]

    Taniguchi, F., Yamada, T., and Kataoka, S. (2008). Heuristic and exact algorithms for the max–min optimization of the multi-scenario knapsack problem. Computers & Operations Research , 35(6):2034--2048

    2008

  39. [47]

    Tattenberg, S., Marants, R., Niepel, K., Bortfeld, T., Sudhyadhom, A., Landry, G., Parodi, K., and Verburg, J. (2022). Validation of prompt gamma-ray spectroscopy for proton range verification in tissue-mimicking and porcine samples. Physics in Medicine & Biology , 67(20):205006

    2022

  40. [48]

    Tian, L., Huang, Z., Janssens, G., Landry, G., Dedes, G., Kamp, F., Belka, C., Pinto, M., and Parodi, K. (2021). Accounting for prompt gamma emission and detection for range verification in proton therapy treatment planning. Physics in Medicine & Biology , 66(5):055005

    2021

  41. [49]

    C., and Soukup, M

    Unkelbach, J., Bortfeld, T., Martin, B. C., and Soukup, M. (2009). R educing the sensitivity of I M P T treatment plans to setup errors and range uncertainties via probabilistic treatment planning . Medical Physics , 36(1):149--163

    2009

  42. [50]

    P., Bangert, M., Kunkel, J., and Oelfke, U

    Ziegenhein, P., Kamerling, C. P., Bangert, M., Kunkel, J., and Oelfke, U. (2013). P erformance-optimized clinical I M R T planning on modern C P U s . Physics in Medicine & Biology , 58(11):3705--3715

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.