Literature DB >> 10613328

Intensity modulation with the "step and shoot" technique using a commercial MLC: a planning study. Multileaf collimator.

M A Keller-Reichenbecher1, T Bortfeld, S Levegrün, J Stein, K Preiser, W Schlegel.   

Abstract

PURPOSE/
OBJECTIVE: For complex planning situations where organs at risk (OAR) surrounding the target volume place stringent constraints, intensity-modulated treatments with photons provide a promising solution to improve tumor control and/or reduce side effects. One approach for the clinical implementation of intensity-modulated treatments is the use of a multileaf collimator (MLC) in the "step and shoot" mode, in which multiple subfields are superimposed for each beam direction to generate stratified intensity distributions with a discrete number of intensity levels. In this paper, we examine the interrelation between the number of intensity levels per beam for various numbers of beams, the conformity of the resulting dose distribution, and the treatment time on a commercial accelerator (Siemens Mevatron KD2) with built-in MLC. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two typical, clinically relevant cases of patients with head and neck tumors were selected for this study. Using the inverse planning technique, optimized treatment plans are generated for 3-25 evenly distributed coplanar beams as well as noncoplanar beams. An iterative gradient method is used to optimize a physical treatment objective that is based on the specified target dose and individual dose constraints assigned to each organ at risk (brain stem, eyes, optic nerves) by the radiation oncologist. The intensity distribution of each beam is discretized within the inverse planning program into three to infinitely many intensity levels or strata. These stratified intensity distributions are converted into MLC leaf position sequences, which can be subsequently transferred via computer link to the linac console, and can be delivered without user intervention. The quality of the plan is determined by comparing the values of the objective function, dose-volume histograms (DVHs), and isodose distributions.
RESULTS: Highly conformal dose distributions can be achieved with five intensity levels in each of seven beams. The merit of using more intensity levels or more beams is relatively small. Acceptable results are achievable even with three levels only. On average, the number of subfields per beam is about 2-2.5 times the number of intensity levels. The average treatment time per subfield is about 20 s. The total treatment time for the three-level and seven-beam case with a total of 39 subfields is 13 min.
CONCLUSION: Optimizing stratified intensity distributions in the inverse planning process allows us to achieve close to optimum results with a surprisingly small number of intensity levels. This finding may help to facilitate and accelerate the delivery of intensity-modulated treatments with the "step and shoot" technique.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10613328     DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(99)00324-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  11 in total

1.  Comparison of total MU and segment areas in VMAT and step-and-shoot IMRT plans.

Authors:  Motohiro Kawashima; Shuichi Ozawa; Akihiro Haga; Akira Sakumi; Chie Kurokawa; Satoru Sugimoto; Kumiko Karasawa; Keiichi Nakagawa; Keisuke Sasai
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2012-07-01

2.  Balancing control and simplicity: A variable aggregation method in intensity modulated radiation therapy planning.

Authors:  Philipp Süss; Karl-Heinz Küfer
Journal:  Linear Algebra Appl       Date:  2008-03-01       Impact factor: 1.401

3.  Use of plan quality degradation to evaluate tradeoffs in delivery efficiency and clinical plan metrics arising from IMRT optimizer and sequencer compromises.

Authors:  Joel R Wilkie; Martha M Matuszak; Mary Feng; Jean M Moran; Benedick A Fraass
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Computerized triplet beam orientation optimization for MRI-guided Co-60 radiotherapy.

Authors:  Dan Nguyen; David Thomas; Minsong Cao; Daniel O'Connor; James Lamb; Ke Sheng
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  New multileaf collimator with a leaf width of 5 mm improves plan quality compared to 10 mm in step-and-shoot IMRT of HNC using integrated boost procedure.

Authors:  Felix Zwicker; Henrik Hauswald; Simeon Nill; Bernhard Rhein; Christian Thieke; Falk Roeder; Carmen Timke; Angelika Zabel-du Bois; Jürgen Debus; Peter E Huber
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2010-05-21       Impact factor: 3.621

6.  Patterns of failure after stereotactic radiotherapy of intracranial meningioma.

Authors:  Vasileios Askoxylakis; Angelika Zabel-du Bois; Wolfgang Schlegel; Jürgen Debus; Peter Huber; Stefanie Milker-Zabel
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2009-12-13       Impact factor: 4.130

7.  A two-stage sequential linear programming approach to IMRT dose optimization.

Authors:  Hao H Zhang; Robert R Meyer; Jianzhou Wu; Shahid A Naqvi; Leyuan Shi; Warren D D'Souza
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2010-01-14       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  A comparison of Monte Carlo dropout and bootstrap aggregation on the performance and uncertainty estimation in radiation therapy dose prediction with deep learning neural networks.

Authors:  Dan Nguyen; Azar Sadeghnejad Barkousaraie; Gyanendra Bohara; Anjali Balagopal; Rafe McBeth; Mu-Han Lin; Steve Jiang
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2021-02-24       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Comparison of simple and complex liver intensity modulated radiotherapy.

Authors:  Mark T Lee; Thomas G Purdie; Cynthia L Eccles; Michael B Sharpe; Laura A Dawson
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2010-11-30       Impact factor: 3.481

10.  Planning quality and delivery efficiency of sMLC delivered IMRT treatment of oropharyngeal cancers evaluated by RTOG H-0022 dosimetric criteria.

Authors:  X Ronald Zhu; Christopher J Schultz; Michael T Gillin
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2004-10-01       Impact factor: 2.102

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.