Literature DB >> 20817436

Dosimetric comparison of manual and beam angle optimization of gantry angles in IMRT.

Shiv P Srivastava1, Indra J Das, Arvind Kumar, Peter A S Johnstone.   

Abstract

Dosimetric comparison of manual beam angle selection (MBS) and beam angle optimization (BAO) for IMRT plans is investigated retrospectively for 15 head and neck and prostate patients. The head and neck and prostate had planning target volumes (PTVs) ranging between 96.0 and 319.9 cm(3) and 153.6 and 321.3 cm(3), whereas OAR ranged between 8.3 and 47.8 cm(3) and 68.3 and 469.2 cm(3), respectively. In MBS, a standard coplanar 7-9 fields equally spaced gantry angles were used. In BAO, the selection of gantry angle was optimized by the algorithm for the same number of beams. The optimization and dose-volume constraints were kept the same for both techniques. Treatment planning was performed on the Eclipse treatment planning system. Our results showed that the dose-volume histogram for PTV are nearly identical in both techniques but BAO provided superior sparing of the organs at risk compared with the MBS. Also, MBS produced statistically significant higher monitor units (MU) and segments than the BAO; 13.1 ± 6.6% (p = 0.012) and 10.4 ± 13.6% (p = 0.140), and 14.6 ± 5.6% (p = 1.003E-5) and 12.6 ± 7.4% (p = 0.76E-3) for head and neck and prostate cases, respectively. The reduction in MU translates into the reduction in total body and integral dose. It is concluded that BAO provides advantage over MBS for most intenisty-modulated radiation therapy cases.
Copyright © 2011 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20817436     DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2010.07.001

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


  7 in total

1.  Volumetric-modulated arc therapy vs. c-IMRT in esophageal cancer: a treatment planning comparison.

Authors:  Li Yin; Hao Wu; Jian Gong; Jian-Hao Geng; Fan Jiang; An-Hui Shi; Rong Yu; Yong-Heng Li; Shu-Kui Han; Bo Xu; Guang-Ying Zhu
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-10-07       Impact factor: 5.742

2.  Using a handheld stereo depth camera to overcome limited field-of-view in simulation imaging for radiation therapy treatment planning.

Authors:  Cesare Jenkins; Lei Xing; Amy Yu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-04-17       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  A surrogate-based metaheuristic global search method for beam angle selection in radiation treatment planning.

Authors:  H H Zhang; S Gao; W Chen; L Shi; W D D'Souza; R R Meyer
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2013-03-21       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Beam angle selection for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment of unresectable pancreatic cancer: are noncoplanar beam angles necessary?

Authors:  D S Chang; G K Bartlett; I J Das; H R Cardenes
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2013-01-29       Impact factor: 3.405

5.  The impact of beam angle configuration of intensity-modulated radiotherapy in the hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Sung Hoon Kim; Min Kyu Kang; Ji Woon Yea; Sung Kyu Kim; Ji Hoon Choi; Se An Oh
Journal:  Radiat Oncol J       Date:  2012-09-30

6.  A line-profile based double partial fusion method for acquiring planning CT of oversized patients in radiation treatment.

Authors:  Huanmei Wu; Qingya Zhao; Minsong Cao; Indra Das
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2012-03-08       Impact factor: 2.102

7.  A dosimetric comparison of the use of equally spaced beam (ESB), beam angle optimization (BAO), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in head and neck cancers treated by intensity modulated radiotherapy.

Authors:  Wan Shun Leung; Vincent W C Wu; Clarie Y W Liu; Ashley C K Cheng
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2019-10-08       Impact factor: 2.102

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.