Linda Rossi1, Sebastiaan Breedveld2, Shafak Aluwini2, Ben Heijmen2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: l.rossi@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate development of a recipe for the creation of a beam angle class solution (CS) for noncoplanar prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy to replace time-consuming individualized beam angle selection (iBAS) without significant loss in plan quality, using the in-house "Erasmus-iCycle" optimizer for fully automated beam profile optimization and iBAS. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For 30 patients, Erasmus-iCycle was first used to generate 15-, 20-, and 25-beam iBAS plans for a CyberKnife equipped with a multileaf collimator. With these plans, 6 recipes for creation of beam angle CSs were investigated. Plans of 10 patients were used to create CSs based on the recipes, and the other 20 to independently test them. For these tests, Erasmus-iCycle was also used to generate intensity modulated radiation therapy plans for the fixed CS beam setups. RESULTS: Of the tested recipes for CS creation, only 1 resulted in 15-, 20-, and 25-beam noncoplanar CSs without plan deterioration compared with iBAS. For the patient group, mean differences in rectum D1cc, V60GyEq, V40GyEq, and Dmean between 25-beam CS plans and 25-beam plans generated with iBAS were 0.2 ± 0.4 Gy, 0.1% ± 0.2%, 0.2% ± 0.3%, and 0.1 ± 0.2 Gy, respectively. Differences between 15- and 20-beam CS and iBAS plans were also negligible. Plan quality for CS plans relative to iBAS plans was also preserved when narrower planning target volume margins were arranged and when planning target volume dose inhomogeneity was decreased. Using a CS instead of iBAS reduced the computation time by a factor of 14 to 25, mainly depending on beam number, without loss in plan quality. CONCLUSIONS: A recipe for creation of robust beam angle CSs for robotic prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy has been developed. Compared with iBAS, computation times decreased by a factor 14 to 25. The use of a CS may avoid long planning times without losses in plan quality.
PURPOSE: To investigate development of a recipe for the creation of a beam angle class solution (CS) for noncoplanar prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy to replace time-consuming individualized beam angle selection (iBAS) without significant loss in plan quality, using the in-house "Erasmus-iCycle" optimizer for fully automated beam profile optimization and iBAS. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For 30 patients, Erasmus-iCycle was first used to generate 15-, 20-, and 25-beam iBAS plans for a CyberKnife equipped with a multileaf collimator. With these plans, 6 recipes for creation of beam angle CSs were investigated. Plans of 10 patients were used to create CSs based on the recipes, and the other 20 to independently test them. For these tests, Erasmus-iCycle was also used to generate intensity modulated radiation therapy plans for the fixed CS beam setups. RESULTS: Of the tested recipes for CS creation, only 1 resulted in 15-, 20-, and 25-beam noncoplanar CSs without plan deterioration compared with iBAS. For the patient group, mean differences in rectum D1cc, V60GyEq, V40GyEq, and Dmean between 25-beam CS plans and 25-beam plans generated with iBAS were 0.2 ± 0.4 Gy, 0.1% ± 0.2%, 0.2% ± 0.3%, and 0.1 ± 0.2 Gy, respectively. Differences between 15- and 20-beam CS and iBAS plans were also negligible. Plan quality for CS plans relative to iBAS plans was also preserved when narrower planning target volume margins were arranged and when planning target volume dose inhomogeneity was decreased. Using a CS instead of iBAS reduced the computation time by a factor of 14 to 25, mainly depending on beam number, without loss in plan quality. CONCLUSIONS: A recipe for creation of robust beam angle CSs for robotic prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy has been developed. Compared with iBAS, computation times decreased by a factor 14 to 25. The use of a CS may avoid long planning times without losses in plan quality.