PURPOSE: A novel optimization algorithm (VOLO™) for robotic radiosurgery in the Precision™ treatment planning system was evaluated for different SRS/SBRT treatments and compared with the previous Sequential Optimization (SO) algorithm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty cases of brain, spine, prostate and lung tumors previously optimized with SO, were re-planned with VOLO™ algorithm keeping the same prescription, collimator type and size, optimization shells, and blocking structures. The dosimetric comparison involved target coverage, conformity (CI), gradient (GI) and homogeneity indexes, specific indicators of dose to OARs and number of nodes, beams, MU and delivery time. For brain only, plans were IRIS- and MLC-based (10 each). The remaining 30 plans were all IRIS-based. RESULTS: VOLO™ optimization was significantly superior for target coverage for prostate and spine, CI for brain, and for brain and urethra dose sparing. SO gave significantly better results for GI for prostate. VOLO™ showed a significantly steeper dose fall-off for brain MLC-based, while for prostate and spine SO was superior. For IRIS-based plans, VOLO™ significantly reduced the nodes (36%), beams (14%), and MU (31%). This led to an average reduction of delivery time of 20% (from 8% for brain to 30% for prostate). For MLC-based plans, VOLO™ significantly increased the nodes and beams (42%) keeping the same number of MU. The averaged delivery time increased by 18%. CONCLUSIONS: With respect to SO, VOLO™ optimization algorithm provided better results in terms of delivery time for IRIS-based and of quality of dose distribution for MLC-based plans, respectively.
PURPOSE: A novel optimization algorithm (VOLO™) for robotic radiosurgery in the Precision™ treatment planning system was evaluated for different SRS/SBRT treatments and compared with the previous Sequential Optimization (SO) algorithm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty cases of brain, spine, prostate and lung tumors previously optimized with SO, were re-planned with VOLO™ algorithm keeping the same prescription, collimator type and size, optimization shells, and blocking structures. The dosimetric comparison involved target coverage, conformity (CI), gradient (GI) and homogeneity indexes, specific indicators of dose to OARs and number of nodes, beams, MU and delivery time. For brain only, plans were IRIS- and MLC-based (10 each). The remaining 30 plans were all IRIS-based. RESULTS: VOLO™ optimization was significantly superior for target coverage for prostate and spine, CI for brain, and for brain and urethra dose sparing. SO gave significantly better results for GI for prostate. VOLO™ showed a significantly steeper dose fall-off for brain MLC-based, while for prostate and spine SO was superior. For IRIS-based plans, VOLO™ significantly reduced the nodes (36%), beams (14%), and MU (31%). This led to an average reduction of delivery time of 20% (from 8% for brain to 30% for prostate). For MLC-based plans, VOLO™ significantly increased the nodes and beams (42%) keeping the same number of MU. The averaged delivery time increased by 18%. CONCLUSIONS: With respect to SO, VOLO™ optimization algorithm provided better results in terms of delivery time for IRIS-based and of quality of dose distribution for MLC-based plans, respectively.
Authors: Marta K Giżyńska; Linda Rossi; Wilhelm den Toom; Maaike T W Milder; Kim C de Vries; Joost Nuyttens; Ben J M Heijmen Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2021-01-21 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Alexandra Hellerbach; Markus Eichner; Daniel Rueß; Klaus Luyken; Mauritius Hoevels; Michael Judge; Christian Baues; Maximilian Ruge; Martin Kocher; Harald Treuer Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2021-12-09 Impact factor: 4.033
Authors: Bin Liang; Ran Wei; Jianghu Zhang; Yongbao Li; Tao Yang; Shouping Xu; Ke Zhang; Wenlong Xia; Bin Guo; Bo Liu; Fugen Zhou; Qiuwen Wu; Jianrong Dai Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 4.309
Authors: Maaike T W Milder; Alba Magallon-Baro; Wilhelm den Toom; Erik de Klerck; Lorne Luthart; Joost J Nuyttens; Mischa S Hoogeman Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-07-28
Authors: Qianyi Xu; Kiet Huynh; Wei Nie; Mark S Rose; Ashish K Chawla; Kevin S Choe; Samir Kanani; Gregory J Kubicek; Jiajin Fan Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-03-12 Impact factor: 2.243