Literature DB >> 24630909

Advantages and limitations of navigation-based multicriteria optimization (MCO) for localized prostate cancer IMRT planning.

Conor K McGarry1, Rasmus Bokrantz2, Joe M O'Sullivan3, Alan R Hounsell4.   

Abstract

Efficacy of inverse planning is becoming increasingly important for advanced radiotherapy techniques. This study's aims were to validate multicriteria optimization (MCO) in RayStation (v2.4, RaySearch Laboratories, Sweden) against standard intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) optimization in Oncentra (v4.1, Nucletron BV, the Netherlands) and characterize dose differences due to conversion of navigated MCO plans into deliverable multileaf collimator apertures. Step-and-shoot IMRT plans were created for 10 patients with localized prostate cancer using both standard optimization and MCO. Acceptable standard IMRT plans with minimal average rectal dose were chosen for comparison with deliverable MCO plans. The trade-off was, for the MCO plans, managed through a user interface that permits continuous navigation between fluence-based plans. Navigated MCO plans were made deliverable at incremental steps along a trajectory between maximal target homogeneity and maximal rectal sparing. Dosimetric differences between navigated and deliverable MCO plans were also quantified. MCO plans, chosen as acceptable under navigated and deliverable conditions resulted in similar rectal sparing compared with standard optimization (33.7 ± 1.8 Gy vs 35.5 ± 4.2 Gy, p = 0.117). The dose differences between navigated and deliverable MCO plans increased as higher priority was placed on rectal avoidance. If the best possible deliverable MCO was chosen, a significant reduction in rectal dose was observed in comparison with standard optimization (30.6 ± 1.4 Gy vs 35.5 ± 4.2 Gy, p = 0.047). Improvements were, however, to some extent, at the expense of less conformal dose distributions, which resulted in significantly higher doses to the bladder for 2 of the 3 tolerance levels. In conclusion, similar IMRT plans can be created for patients with prostate cancer using MCO compared with standard optimization. Limitations exist within MCO regarding conversion of navigated plans to deliverable apertures, particularly for plans that emphasize avoidance of critical structures. Minimizing these differences would result in better quality treatments for patients with prostate cancer who were treated with radiotherapy using MCO plans.
Copyright © 2014 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  IMRT; MCO; Prostate

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24630909     DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2014.02.002

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


  10 in total

1.  Improving target dose coverage and organ-at-risk sparing in intensity-modulated radiotherapy of advanced laryngeal cancer by a simple optimization technique.

Authors:  J-Y Lu; L-L Wu; J-Y Zhang; J Zheng; M L-M Cheung; C-C Ma; L-X Xie; B-T Huang
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-12-12       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  Automation in intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment planning-a review of recent innovations.

Authors:  Mohammad Hussein; Ben J M Heijmen; Dirk Verellen; Andrew Nisbet
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-09-04       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Class solutions for SABR-VMAT for high-risk prostate cancer with and without elective nodal irradiation.

Authors:  Sarah O S Osman; Prakash Jeevanandam; Nithya Kanakavelu; Denise M Irvine; Ciara A Lyons; Suneil Jain; Alan R Hounsell; Conor K McGarry
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2016-11-24       Impact factor: 3.481

4.  Tree-based exploration of the optimization objectives for automatic cervical cancer IMRT treatment planning.

Authors:  Hanlin Wang; Ruoxi Wang; Jiacheng Liu; Jian Zhang; Kaining Yao; Haizhen Yue; Yibao Zhang; Jing You; Hao Wu
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-06-16       Impact factor: 3.629

5.  Multicriteria optimization enables less experienced planners to efficiently produce high quality treatment plans in head and neck cancer radiotherapy.

Authors:  Roel G J Kierkels; Ruurd Visser; Hendrik P Bijl; Johannes A Langendijk; Aart A van 't Veld; Roel J H M Steenbakkers; Erik W Korevaar
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2015-04-12       Impact factor: 3.481

6.  Clinical implementation of a knowledge based planning tool for prostate VMAT.

Authors:  Richard Powis; Andrew Bird; Matthew Brennan; Susan Hinks; Hannah Newman; Katie Reed; John Sage; Gareth Webster
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2017-05-08       Impact factor: 3.481

7.  Volumetric-modulated arc therapy using multicriteria optimization for body and extremity sarcoma.

Authors:  Michael R Young; David L Craft; Caroline M Colbert; Kyla Remillard; Liam Vanbenthuysen; Yi Wang
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2016-11-08       Impact factor: 2.102

8.  Automatic Planning for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Based on Progressive Optimization in RayStation Treatment Planning System.

Authors:  Yiwei Yang; Kainan Shao; Jie Zhang; Ming Chen; Yuanyuan Chen; Guoping Shan
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2020 Jan-Dec

9.  A broad scope knowledge based model for optimization of VMAT in esophageal cancer: validation and assessment of plan quality among different treatment centers.

Authors:  Antonella Fogliata; Giorgia Nicolini; Alessandro Clivio; Eugenio Vanetti; Sarbani Laksar; Angelo Tozzi; Marta Scorsetti; Luca Cozzi
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2015-10-31       Impact factor: 3.481

10.  Assessment of multi-criteria optimization (MCO) for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiation therapy (HA-WBRT).

Authors:  Stephen Zieminski; Melin Khandekar; Yi Wang
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2018-02-07       Impact factor: 2.102

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.