Literature DB >> 14684188

A systematic benchmark method for analysis and comparison of IMRT treatment planning algorithms.

Charles S Mayo1, Marcia M Urie.   

Abstract

Tools and procedures for evaluating and comparing different intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) systems are presented. IMRT is increasingly in demand and there are numerous systems available commercially. These programs introduce significantly different software to dosimetrists and physicists than conventional planning systems, and the options often seem initially overwhelmingly complex to the user. By creating geometric target volumes and critical normal tissues, the characteristics of the algorithms may be investigated, and the influence of the different parameters explored. Overall optimization strategies of the algorithm may be characterized by treating a square target volume (TV) with 2 perpendicular beams, with and without heterogeneities. A half-donut (hemi-annulus) TV with a "donut hole" (central cylinder) critical normal tissue (CNT) on a CT of a simulated quality assurance phantom is suggested as a good geometry to explore the IMRT algorithm parameters. Using this geometry, the order of varying parameters is suggested. First is to determine the effects of the number of stratifications of optimized intensity fluence on the resulting dose distribution, and selecting a fixed number of stratifications for further studies. To characterize the dose distributions, a dose-homogeneity index (DHI) is defined as the ratio of the dose received by 90% of the volume to the minimum dose received by the "hottest" 10% of the volume. The next step is to explore the effects of priority and penalty on both the TV and the CNT. Then, choosing and fixing these parameters, the effects of varying the number of beams can be looked at. As well as evaluating the dose distributions (and DHI), the number of subfields and the number of monitor units required for different numbers of stratifications and beams can be evaluated.

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14684188     DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2003.05.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Dosim        ISSN: 1873-4022            Impact factor:   1.482


  6 in total

1.  Image-based lung functional radiotherapy planning for non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Faegheh S Mounessi; Jörg Eckardt; Arne Holstein; Santiago Ewig; Stefan Könemann
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2019-10-02       Impact factor: 3.621

2.  Pelvic Ewing sarcomas. Three-dimensional conformal vs. intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

Authors:  F S Mounessi; P Lehrich; U Haverkamp; N Willich; T Bölling; H T Eich
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2013-02-28       Impact factor: 3.621

3.  Which technique for radiation is most beneficial for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer? Intensity modulated proton therapy versus intensity modulated photon treatment, helical tomotherapy and volumetric arc therapy for primary radiation - an intraindividual comparison.

Authors:  Simone Marnitz; Waldemar Wlodarczyk; Oliver Neumann; Christhardt Koehler; Mirko Weihrauch; Volker Budach; Luca Cozzi
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2015-04-17       Impact factor: 3.481

Review 4.  Quality assurance for clinical trials.

Authors:  Geoffrey S Ibbott; Annette Haworth; David S Followill
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2013-12-19       Impact factor: 6.244

5.  A comparison of two commercial treatment-planning systems to IMRT.

Authors:  M Peter Petric; Brenda G Clark; James L Robar
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2005-08-12       Impact factor: 2.102

6.  Volumetric modulated arc therapy for total body irradiation: A feasibility study using Pinnacle3 treatment planning system and Elekta Agility™ linac.

Authors:  Kirsty Symons; Colm Morrison; Jason Parry; Simon Woodings; Yvonne Zissiadis
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2018-01-24       Impact factor: 2.102

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.