PURPOSE: To test whether multicriteria optimization (MCO) can reduce treatment planning time and improve plan quality in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten IMRT patients (5 with glioblastoma and 5 with locally advanced pancreatic cancers) were logged during the standard treatment planning procedure currently in use at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH). Planning durations and other relevant planning information were recorded. In parallel, the patients were planned using an MCO planning system, and similar planning time data were collected. The patients were treated with the standard plan, but each MCO plan was also approved by the physicians. Plans were then blindly reviewed 3 weeks after planning by the treating physician. RESULTS: In all cases, the treatment planning time was vastly shorter for the MCO planning (average MCO treatment planning time was 12 min; average standard planning time was 135 min). The physician involvement time in the planning process increased from an average of 4.8 min for the standard process to 8.6 min for the MCO process. In all cases, the MCO plan was blindly identified as the superior plan. CONCLUSIONS: This provides the first concrete evidence that MCO-based planning is superior in terms of both planning efficiency and dose distribution quality compared with the current trial and error-based IMRT planning approach.
PURPOSE: To test whether multicriteria optimization (MCO) can reduce treatment planning time and improve plan quality in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten IMRT patients (5 with glioblastoma and 5 with locally advanced pancreatic cancers) were logged during the standard treatment planning procedure currently in use at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH). Planning durations and other relevant planning information were recorded. In parallel, the patients were planned using an MCO planning system, and similar planning time data were collected. The patients were treated with the standard plan, but each MCO plan was also approved by the physicians. Plans were then blindly reviewed 3 weeks after planning by the treating physician. RESULTS: In all cases, the treatment planning time was vastly shorter for the MCO planning (average MCO treatment planning time was 12 min; average standard planning time was 135 min). The physician involvement time in the planning process increased from an average of 4.8 min for the standard process to 8.6 min for the MCO process. In all cases, the MCO plan was blindly identified as the superior plan. CONCLUSIONS: This provides the first concrete evidence that MCO-based planning is superior in terms of both planning efficiency and dose distribution quality compared with the current trial and error-based IMRT planning approach.
Authors: Aswin L Hoffmann; Alex Y D Siem; Dick den Hertog; Johannes H A M Kaanders; Henk Huizenga Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2006-11-23 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Sebastiaan Breedveld; Pascal R M Storchi; Marleen Keijzer; Arnold W Heemink; Ben J M Heijmen Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2007-10-02 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Margie A Hunt; Ching-Yeh Hsiung; Spirodon V Spirou; Chen-Shou Chui; Howard I Amols; Clifton C Ling Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Theodore S Hong; David L Craft; Fredrik Carlsson; Thomas R Bortfeld Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-11-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Christian Thieke; Karl-Heinz Küfer; Michael Monz; Alexander Scherrer; Fernando Alonso; Uwe Oelfke; Peter E Huber; Jürgen Debus; Thomas Bortfeld Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2007-09-24 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Maryam Moteabbed; Alexei Trofimov; Gregory C Sharp; Yi Wang; Anthony L Zietman; Jason A Efstathiou; Hsiao-Ming Lu Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-12-29 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Christian Schumann; Christian Rieder; Sabrina Haase; Katrin Teichert; Philipp Süss; Peter Isfort; Philipp Bruners; Tobias Preusser Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Kleopatra Pirpinia; Peter A N Bosman; Claudette E Loo; Nicola S Russell; Marcel B van Herk; Tanja Alderliesten Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-10-30
Authors: Michael Baumann; Mechthild Krause; Jens Overgaard; Jürgen Debus; Søren M Bentzen; Juliane Daartz; Christian Richter; Daniel Zips; Thomas Bortfeld Journal: Nat Rev Cancer Date: 2016-03-18 Impact factor: 60.716