Literature DB >> 15984674

Improving IMRT delivery efficiency using intensity limits during inverse planning.

Martha M Coselmon1, Jean M Moran, Jeffrey D Radawski, Benedick A Fraass.   

Abstract

Inverse planned intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) fields can be highly modulated due to the large number of degrees of freedom involved in the inverse planning process. Additional modulation typically results in a more optimal plan, although the clinical rewards may be small or offset by additional delivery complexity and/or increased dose from transmission and leakage. Increasing modulation decreases delivery efficiency, and may lead to plans that are more sensitive to geometrical uncertainties. The purpose of this work is to assess the use of maximum intensity limits in inverse IMRT planning as a simple way to increase delivery efficiency without significantly affecting plan quality. Nine clinical cases (three each for brain, prostate, and head/neck) were used to evaluate advantages and disadvantages of limiting maximum intensity to increase delivery efficiency. IMRT plans were generated using in-house protocol-based constraints and objectives for the brain and head/neck, and RTOG 9406 dose volume objectives in the prostate. Each case was optimized at a series of maximum intensity ratios (the product of the maximum intensity and the number of beams divided by the prescribed dose to the target volume), and evaluated in terms of clinical metrics, dose-volume histograms, monitor units (MU) required per fraction (SMLC and DMLC delivery), and intensity map variation (a measure of the beam modulation). In each site tested, it was possible to reduce total monitor units by constraining the maximum allowed intensity without compromising the clinical acceptability of the plan. Monitor unit reductions up to 38% were observed for SMLC delivery, while reductions up to 29% were achieved for DMLC delivery. In general, complicated geometries saw a smaller reduction in monitor units for both delivery types, although DMLC delivery required significantly more monitor units in all cases. Constraining the maximum intensity in an inverse IMRT plan is a simple way to improve delivery efficiency without compromising plan objectives.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15984674     DOI: 10.1118/1.1895545

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  15 in total

1.  Inverse-optimized 3D conformal planning: minimizing complexity while achieving equivalence with beamlet IMRT in multiple clinical sites.

Authors:  Benedick A Fraass; Jennifer M Steers; Martha M Matuszak; Daniel L McShan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  FusionArc optimization: a hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning strategy.

Authors:  Martha M Matuszak; Jennifer M Steers; Troy Long; Daniel L McShan; Benedick A Fraass; H Edwin Romeijn; Randall K Ten Haken
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Adaptive diffusion smoothing: a diffusion-based method to reduce IMRT field complexity.

Authors:  Martha M Matuszak; Edward W Larsen; Kyung-Wook Jee; Daniel L McShan; Benedick A Fraass
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 4.  Complexity metrics for IMRT and VMAT plans: a review of current literature and applications.

Authors:  Sophie Chiavassa; Igor Bessieres; Magali Edouard; Michel Mathot; Alexandra Moignier
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-07-24       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 5.  Influence of segment width on plan quality for volumetric modulated arc based stereotactic body radiotherapy.

Authors:  Karthikeyan Nithiyanantham; Ganesh Kadirampatti Mani; Vikraman Subramani; Karrthick Karukkupalayam Palaniappan; Mohanraj Uthiran; Sennniandavar Vellengiri; Sambasivaselli Raju; Sanjay S Supe; Tejinder Kataria
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2014-04-16

6.  Incorporating deliverable monitor unit constraints into spot intensity optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy treatment planning.

Authors:  Wenhua Cao; Gino Lim; Xiaoqiang Li; Yupeng Li; X Ronald Zhu; Xiaodong Zhang
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2013-07-09       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  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

8.  Radiotherapy and risks of tumor regrowth or inducing second cancer.

Authors:  Emad Y Moawad
Journal:  Cancer Nanotechnol       Date:  2011-08-18

Review 9.  Direct aperture optimization as a means of reducing the complexity of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy plans.

Authors:  Maria Broderick; Michelle Leech; Mary Coffey
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2009-02-16       Impact factor: 3.481

10.  What is an acceptably smoothed fluence? Dosimetric and delivery considerations for dynamic sliding window IMRT.

Authors:  Nicolini Giorgia; Fogliata Antonella; Vanetti Eugenio; Clivio Alessandro; Ammazzalorso Filippo; Cozzi Luca
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2007-11-23       Impact factor: 3.481

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.