Literature DB >> 18199916

Comparison of IMRT planning with two-step and one-step optimization: a way to simplify IMRT.

E Ludlum1, P Xia.   

Abstract

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans are often complex, increasing the potential for dosimetric errors and prolonged treatment times. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of one-step optimization as compared to conventional two-step optimization in inverse IMRT planning and to investigate the tradeoff between the number of segments and IMRT plan quality. Ten IMRT cases were studied, including five prostate patients and five nasopharynx patients. For each patient, seven research plans were generated with the same beam angles and objectives as the clinical plan using a commercial treatment planning system with the ability to perform one-step and two-step optimization. Two-step plans had the number of intensity levels set to 10, 5 and 3. One-step plans had the maximum number of segments set at 80, 60, 40 and 20 for prostate, and 100, 65, 50 and 25 for nasopharynx. When compared with two-step plans with similar numbers of segments, one-step plans resulted in lower MUs, higher homogeneity and conformal indices, and lower doses to sensitive structures. One-step optimization is an effective method for simplifying IMRT plans, resulting in a significant reduction in the number of segments for step and shoot delivery without significantly sacrificing plan quality.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18199916     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/53/3/018

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


  9 in total

1.  An empirical method for automatic determination of maximum number of segments in DMPO-based IMRT for Head and Neck cases.

Authors:  Vaitheeswaran Ranganathan; K Joseph Maria Das
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2016-09-30

2.  Dosimetric comparison using different multileaf collimeters in intensity-modulated radiotherapy for upper thoracic esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Youling Gong; Shichao Wang; Lin Zhou; Yongmei Liu; Yong Xu; You Lu; Sen Bai; Yuchuan Fu; Qingfeng Xu; Qingfeng Jiang
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2010-07-15       Impact factor: 3.481

3.  A feedback constraint optimization method for intensity-modulated radiation therapy of nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Authors:  Yongwu Li; Xiaonan Sun; Q I Wang; Qinxuan Zhou; Benxing Gu; Guozhi Shi; Dongliang Jiang
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2015-07-23       Impact factor: 2.967

4.  Relationship of segment area and monitor unit efficiency in aperture-based IMRT optimization.

Authors:  Peng Qi; Ping Xia
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2013-05-06       Impact factor: 2.102

5.  Analysis of RapidArc optimization strategies using objective function values and dose-volume histograms.

Authors:  Michael Oliver; Isabelle Gagne; Carmen Popescu; Will Ansbacher; Wayne A Beckham
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2009-12-03       Impact factor: 2.102

6.  Impact of small MU/segment and dose rate on delivery accuracy of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT).

Authors:  Long Huang; Tingliang Zhuang; Anthony Mastroianni; Toufik Djemil; Taoran Cui; Ping Xia
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2016-05-08       Impact factor: 2.102

7.  An integrated strategy of biological and physical constraints in biological optimization for cervical carcinoma.

Authors:  Ziwei Feng; Cheng Tao; Jian Zhu; Jinhu Chen; Gang Yu; Shaohua Qin; Yong Yin; Dengwang Li
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 3.481

Review 8.  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

9.  An Estimation of Radiobiological Parameters for Head-and-Neck Cancer Cells and the Clinical Implications.

Authors:  X Sharon Qi; Qiuhui Yang; Steve P Lee; X Allen Li; Dian Wang
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2012-06-15       Impact factor: 6.639

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.