Literature DB >> 1589457

An algorithm for maximizing the probability of complication-free tumour control in radiation therapy.

P Källman1, B K Lind, A Brahme.   

Abstract

New radiobiological models are used to describe tumour and normal tissue reactions and to account for their dependence on the irradiated volume and inhomogeneities of the delivered dose distribution and cell sensitivity. The probability of accomplishing complication-free tumour control is maximized by an iterative algorithm. The algorithm is demonstrated by applying it to a one-dimensional (1D) tumour model but also to a more clinically relevant 2D case. The new algorithm is n-dimensional so it could simultaneously optimize the dose delivery in a 3D volume and in principle also select the ideal beam orientations, beam modalities (photons, electrons, neutrons, etc) and optimal spectral distributions of the corresponding modalities. To make calculation time reasonable, 2D-3D problems are most practical, and suitable beam orientations are preselected by the choice of irradiation kernel. The energy deposition kernel should therefore be selected in order to avoid irradiation through organs at risk. Clinically established dose response parameters for the tissues of interest are used to make the optimization as relevant as possible to the clinical problems at hand. The algorithm can be used even with a poorly selected kernel because it will always, as far as possible, avoid irradiating organs at risk. The generated dose distribution will be optimal with respect to the spatial distribution and assumed radiobiological properties of the tumour and normal tissues at risk for the kernel chosen. More specifically the probability of achieving tumour control without fatal complications in normal tissues is maximized. In the clinical examples a reduced tumour dose is seen at the border to sensitive organs at risk, but instead an increased dose just inside the tumour border is generated. The increased tumour dose has the effect that the dose fall-off is as steep as possible at the border to organs at risk.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1589457     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/37/4/004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  14 in total

1.  [Inverse radiotherapy planning].

Authors:  W Schlegel; P Kneschaurek
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 3.621

2.  Evaluation of a semiautomatic 3D fusion technique applied to molecular imaging and MRI brain/frame volume data sets.

Authors:  R J T Gorniak; E L Kramer; G Q Maguire; M E Noz; C J Schettino; M P Zeleznik
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 4.460

3.  Consideration of the likely benefit from implementation of prostate image-guided radiotherapy using current margin sizes: a radiobiological analysis.

Authors:  G S J Tudor; Y L Rimmer; T B Nguyen; M A Cowen; S J Thomas
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-02-14       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  A graphic user interface toolkit for specification, report and comparison of dose-response relations and treatment plans using the biologically effective uniform dose.

Authors:  Fan-Chi Su; Panayiotis Mavroidis; Chengyu Shi; Brigida Costa Ferreira; Niko Papanikolaou
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2010-03-24       Impact factor: 5.428

5.  Comparison of the helical tomotherapy against the multileaf collimator-based intensity-modulated radiotherapy and 3D conformal radiation modalities in lung cancer radiotherapy.

Authors:  P Mavroidis; C Shi; G A Plataniotis; M G Delichas; B Costa Ferreira; S Rodriguez; B K Lind; N Papanikolaou
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2010-09-21       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Assessing four-dimensional radiotherapy planning and respiratory motion-induced dose difference based on biologically effective uniform dose.

Authors:  F-C Su; C Shi; P Mavroidis; V Goytia; R Crownover; P Rassiah-Szegedi; N Papanikolaou
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2009-06

7.  Automated volumetric modulated Arc therapy treatment planning for stage III lung cancer: how does it compare with intensity-modulated radio therapy?

Authors:  Enzhuo M Quan; Joe Y Chang; Zhongxing Liao; Tingyi Xia; Zhiyong Yuan; Hui Liu; Xiaoqiang Li; Cody A Wages; Radhe Mohan; Xiaodong Zhang
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2012-09-01       Impact factor: 7.038

8.  Consequences of anorectal cancer atlas implementation in the cooperative group setting: radiobiologic analysis of a prospective randomized in silico target delineation study.

Authors:  Panayiotis Mavroidis; Drosoula Giantsoudis; Musaddiq J Awan; Jasper Nijkamp; Coen R N Rasch; Joop C Duppen; Charles R Thomas; Paul Okunieff; William E Jones; Lisa A Kachnic; Niko Papanikolaou; Clifton D Fuller
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2014-07-01       Impact factor: 6.280

Review 9.  Modeling Radiotherapy Induced Normal Tissue Complications: An Overview beyond Phenomenological Models.

Authors:  Marco D'Andrea; Marcello Benassi; Lidia Strigari
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 2.238

10.  Radiobiological evaluation of the influence of dwell time modulation restriction in HIPO optimized HDR prostate brachytherapy implants.

Authors:  Panayiotis Mavroidis; Zaira Katsilieri; Vasiliki Kefala; Natasa Milickovic; Nikos Papanikolaou; Andreas Karabis; Nikolaos Zamboglou; Dimos Baltas
Journal:  J Contemp Brachytherapy       Date:  2010-10-13
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.