Literature DB >> 18777931

Evaluation of dose prediction errors and optimization convergence errors of deliverable-based head-and-neck IMRT plans computed with a superposition/convolution dose algorithm.

I B Mihaylov1, J V Siebers.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate dose prediction errors (DPEs) and optimization convergence errors (OCEs) resulting from use of a superposition/convolution dose calculation algorithm in deliverable intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) optimization for head-and-neck (HN) patients. Thirteen HN IMRT patient plans were retrospectively reoptimized. The IMRT optimization was performed in three sequential steps: (1) fast optimization in which an initial nondeliverable IMRT solution was achieved and then converted to multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf sequences; (2) mixed deliverable optimization that used a Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm to account for the incident photon fluence modulation by the MLC, whereas a superposition/convolution (SC) dose calculation algorithm was utilized for the patient dose calculations; and (3) MC deliverable-based optimization in which both fluence and patient dose calculations were performed with a MC algorithm. DPEs of the mixed method were quantified by evaluating the differences between the mixed optimization SC dose result and a MC dose recalculation of the mixed optimization solution. OCEs of the mixed method were quantified by evaluating the differences between the MC recalculation of the mixed optimization solution and the final MC optimization solution. The results were analyzed through dose volume indices derived from the cumulative dose-volume histograms for selected anatomic structures. Statistical equivalence tests were used to determine the significance of the DPEs and the OCEs. Furthermore, a correlation analysis between DPEs and OCEs was performed. The evaluated DPEs were within +/- 2.8% while the OCEs were within 5.5%, indicating that OCEs can be clinically significant even when DPEs are clinically insignificant. The full MC-dose-based optimization reduced normal tissue dose by as much as 8.5% compared with the mixed-method optimization results. The DPEs and the OCEs in the targets had correlation coefficients greater than 0.71, and there was no correlation for the organs at risk. Because full MC-based optimization results in lower normal tissue doses, this method proves advantageous for HN IMRT optimization.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18777931      PMCID: PMC2673652          DOI: 10.1118/1.2956710

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


  36 in total

1.  Monte Carlo evaluation of 6 MV intensity modulated radiotherapy plans for head and neck and lung treatments.

Authors:  Lu Wang; Ellen Yorke; Chen-Shou Chui
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Incorporating multi-leaf collimator leaf sequencing into iterative IMRT optimization.

Authors:  Jeffrey V Siebers; Marc Lauterbach; Paul J Keall; Radhe Mohan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Comparison of IMRT optimization based on a pencil beam and a superposition algorithm.

Authors:  Christian Scholz; Simeon Nill; Uwe Oelfke
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Multiple local minima in IMRT optimization based on dose-volume criteria.

Authors:  Qiuwen Wu; Radhe Mohan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Monitor unit calculation for Monte Carlo treatment planning.

Authors:  C M Ma; R A Price; J S Li; L Chen; L Wang; E Fourkal; L Qin; J Yang
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2004-05-07       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Calculation and application of point spread functions for treatment planning with high energy photon beams.

Authors:  A Ahnesjö; P Andreo; A Brahme
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  1987 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.089

7.  When and how can we improve precision in radiotherapy?

Authors:  A Dutreix
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  1984-12       Impact factor: 6.280

8.  Simultaneous integrated boost intensity-modulated radiotherapy for locally advanced head-and-neck squamous cell carcinomas. I: dosimetric results.

Authors:  Qiuwen Wu; Radhe Mohan; Monica Morris; Andrew Lauve; Rupert Schmidt-Ullrich
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2003-06-01       Impact factor: 7.038

9.  Simultaneous integrated boost intensity-modulated radiotherapy for locally advanced head-and-neck squamous cell carcinomas: II--clinical results.

Authors:  Andrew Lauve; Monica Morris; Rupert Schmidt-Ullrich; Qiuwen Wu; Radhe Mohan; Olubumni Abayomi; David Buck; Diane Holdford; Kathryn Dawson; Laurence Dinardo; Evan Reiter
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2004-10-01       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 10.  An approach to the interpretation of clinical data on the tumour control probability-dose relationship.

Authors:  J Dutreix; M Tubiana; A Dutreix
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  1988-03       Impact factor: 6.280

View more
  10 in total

1.  Dose-mass inverse optimization for minimally moving thoracic lesions.

Authors:  I B Mihaylov; E G Moros
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-04-24       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  CT-myelography for high-dose irradiation of spinal and paraspinal tumors with helical tomotherapy: revival of an old tool.

Authors:  Matthias Uhl; Florian Sterzing; Gregor Habl; Kai Schubert; Gabriele Sroka-Perez; Jürgen Debus; Klaus Herfarth
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2011-06-27       Impact factor: 3.621

3.  New approach in lung cancer radiotherapy offers better normal tissue sparing.

Authors:  Ivaylo B Mihaylov
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2016-09-28       Impact factor: 6.280

4.  Evaluation of dose prediction error and optimization convergence error in four-dimensional inverse planning of robotic stereotactic lung radiotherapy.

Authors:  Mark K H Chan; Dora L W Kwong; Anthony Tong; Eric Tam; Sherry C Y Ng
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2013-07-08       Impact factor: 2.102

5.  Automated inverse optimization facilitates lower doses to normal tissue in pancreatic stereotactic body radiotherapy.

Authors:  Ivaylo B Mihaylov; Eric A Mellon; Raphael Yechieli; Lorraine Portelance
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-01-19       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  The effect of gantry spacing resolution on plan quality in a single modulated arc optimization.

Authors:  Ivaylo B Mihaylov; Bruce Curran; Edward Sternick
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2011-11-15       Impact factor: 2.102

7.  Integral Dose-Based Inverse Optimization May Reduce Side Effects in Radiotherapy of Prostate Carcinoma.

Authors:  Ivaylo B Mihaylov
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 6.244

8.  Impact of dose calculation accuracy during optimization on lung IMRT plan quality.

Authors:  Ying Li; Anna Rodrigues; Taoran Li; Lulin Yuan; Fang-Fang Yin; Q Jackie Wu
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2015-01-08       Impact factor: 2.102

9.  Dosimetric impact of intermediate dose calculation for optimization convergence error.

Authors:  Byung Do Park; Tae Gyu Kim; Jong Eon Kim
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2016-06-21

10.  Algorithm for correcting optimization convergence errors in Eclipse.

Authors:  Albert S Zacarias; Michael D Mills
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2009-10-14       Impact factor: 2.102

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.