Fazal Khan1, David Craft2. 1. Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: dcraft@mgh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate automated multicriteria optimization (MCO), which is designed for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) but invoked with limited segmentation, to efficiently produce high-quality 3-dimensional (3D) conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) plans. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Treatment for 10 patients previously planned with 3D-CRT to various disease sites (brain, breast, lung, abdomen, pelvis) was replanned with a low-segment inverse MCO technique. The MCO-3D plans used the same beam geometry of the original 3D plans but were limited to an energy of 6 MV. The MCO-3D plans were optimized with fluence-based MCO IMRT and then, after MCO navigation, segmented with a low number of segments. The 3D and MCO-3D plans were compared by evaluating mean dose for all structures, D95 (dose that 95% of the structure receives) and homogeneity indexes for targets, D1 and clinically appropriate dose-volume objectives for individual organs at risk (OARs), monitor units, and physician preference. RESULTS: The MCO-3D plans reduced the mean doses to OARs (41 of a total of 45 OARs had a mean dose reduction; P << .01) and monitor units (7 of 10 plans had reduced monitor units; the average reduction was 17% [P = .08]) while maintaining clinical standards for coverage and homogeneity of target volumes. All MCO-3D plans were preferred by physicians over their corresponding 3D plans. CONCLUSIONS: High-quality 3D plans can be produced by use of MCO-IMRT optimization, resulting in automated field-in-field-type plans with good monitor unit efficiency. Adoption of this technology in a clinic could improve plan quality and streamline treatment plan production by using a single system applicable to both IMRT and 3D planning.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate automated multicriteria optimization (MCO), which is designed for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) but invoked with limited segmentation, to efficiently produce high-quality 3-dimensional (3D) conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) plans. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Treatment for 10 patients previously planned with 3D-CRT to various disease sites (brain, breast, lung, abdomen, pelvis) was replanned with a low-segment inverse MCO technique. The MCO-3D plans used the same beam geometry of the original 3D plans but were limited to an energy of 6 MV. The MCO-3D plans were optimized with fluence-based MCO IMRT and then, after MCO navigation, segmented with a low number of segments. The 3D and MCO-3D plans were compared by evaluating mean dose for all structures, D95 (dose that 95% of the structure receives) and homogeneity indexes for targets, D1 and clinically appropriate dose-volume objectives for individual organs at risk (OARs), monitor units, and physician preference. RESULTS: The MCO-3D plans reduced the mean doses to OARs (41 of a total of 45 OARs had a mean dose reduction; P << .01) and monitor units (7 of 10 plans had reduced monitor units; the average reduction was 17% [P = .08]) while maintaining clinical standards for coverage and homogeneity of target volumes. All MCO-3D plans were preferred by physicians over their corresponding 3D plans. CONCLUSIONS: High-quality 3D plans can be produced by use of MCO-IMRT optimization, resulting in automated field-in-field-type plans with good monitor unit efficiency. Adoption of this technology in a clinic could improve plan quality and streamline treatment plan production by using a single system applicable to both IMRT and 3D planning.
Authors: Jordan Sutton; David Kabiru; Michael Neu; Lehendrick Turner; Peter Balter; Matthew Palmer Journal: Med Dosim Date: 2011-09-01 Impact factor: 1.482
Authors: Paul L Nguyen; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Toni K Choueiri; Wesley W Choi; Yin Lei; Karen E Hoffman; Jim C Hu Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-03-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Benjamin D Smith; I-Wen Pan; Ya-Chen T Shih; Grace L Smith; Jay R Harris; Rinaa Punglia; Lori J Pierce; Reshma Jagsi; James A Hayman; Sharon H Giordano; Thomas A Buchholz Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-04-27 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Yabo Fu; Hao Zhang; Eric D Morris; Carri K Glide-Hurst; Suraj Pai; Alberto Traverso; Leonard Wee; Ibrahim Hadzic; Per-Ivar Lønne; Chenyang Shen; Tian Liu; Xiaofeng Yang Journal: IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci Date: 2021-08-24