PURPOSE: To compare two inverse planning algorithms, the hybrid inverse planning optimization (HIPO) algorithm and the inverse planning simulated annealing (IPSA) algorithm, for cervical cancer brachytherapy and provide suggestions for their usage. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study consisted of 24 cervical cancer patients treated with CT image-based high-dose-rate brachytherapy using various combinations of tandem/ovoid applicator and interstitial needles. For fixed catheter configurations, plans were retrospectively optimized with two methods: IPSA and HIPO. The dosimetric parameters with respect to target coverage, localization of high dose volume (LHDV), conformal index (COIN), and sparing of organs at risk (OARs) were evaluated. A plan assessment method which combines a graphical analysis and a scoring index was used to compare the quality of two plans for each case. The characteristics of dwell time distributions of the two plans were also analyzed in detail. RESULTS: Both IPSA and HIPO can produce clinically acceptable treatment plans. The rectum D2cc was slightly lower for HIPO as compared to IPSA (P = 0.002). All other dosimetric parameters for targets and OARs were not significantly different between the two algorithms. The generated radar plots and scores intuitively presented the plan properties and enabled to reflect the clinical priorities for the treatment plans. Significant different characteristics were observed between the dwell time distributions generated by IPSA and HIPO. CONCLUSIONS: Both algorithms could generate high-quality treatment plans, but their performances were slightly different in terms of each specific patient. The clinical decision on the optimal plan for each patient can be made quickly and consistently with the help of the plan assessment method. Besides, the characteristics of dwell time distribution were suggested to be taken into account during plan selection. Compared to IPSA, the dwell time distributions generated by HIPO may be closer to clinical preference.
PURPOSE: To compare two inverse planning algorithms, the hybrid inverse planning optimization (HIPO) algorithm and the inverse planning simulated annealing (IPSA) algorithm, for cervical cancer brachytherapy and provide suggestions for their usage. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study consisted of 24 cervical cancerpatients treated with CT image-based high-dose-rate brachytherapy using various combinations of tandem/ovoid applicator and interstitial needles. For fixed catheter configurations, plans were retrospectively optimized with two methods: IPSA and HIPO. The dosimetric parameters with respect to target coverage, localization of high dose volume (LHDV), conformal index (COIN), and sparing of organs at risk (OARs) were evaluated. A plan assessment method which combines a graphical analysis and a scoring index was used to compare the quality of two plans for each case. The characteristics of dwell time distributions of the two plans were also analyzed in detail. RESULTS: Both IPSA and HIPO can produce clinically acceptable treatment plans. The rectum D2cc was slightly lower for HIPO as compared to IPSA (P = 0.002). All other dosimetric parameters for targets and OARs were not significantly different between the two algorithms. The generated radar plots and scores intuitively presented the plan properties and enabled to reflect the clinical priorities for the treatment plans. Significant different characteristics were observed between the dwell time distributions generated by IPSA and HIPO. CONCLUSIONS: Both algorithms could generate high-quality treatment plans, but their performances were slightly different in terms of each specific patient. The clinical decision on the optimal plan for each patient can be made quickly and consistently with the help of the plan assessment method. Besides, the characteristics of dwell time distribution were suggested to be taken into account during plan selection. Compared to IPSA, the dwell time distributions generated by HIPO may be closer to clinical preference.
Authors: Jörg Bohsung; Sofie Gillis; Rafael Arrans; Annemarie Bakai; Carlos De Wagter; Tommy Knöös; Ben J Mijnheer; Marta Paiusco; Bruce A Perrin; Hans Welleweerd; Peter Williams Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: D Baltas; C Kolotas; K Geramani; R F Mould; G Ioannidis; M Kekchidi; N Zamboglou Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1998-01-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Anna M Dinkla; Rob van der Laarse; Emmie Kaljouw; Bradley R Pieters; Kees Koedooder; Niek van Wieringen; Arjan Bel Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2014-10-22 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Dilini S Pinnaduwage; J Adam Cunha; Vivian Weinberg; Devan Krishnamurthy; Marc Nash; I-Chow Hsu; Jean Pouliot Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2013-04-11 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Charlotte Dai Kubicky; Benjamin M Yeh; Etienne Lessard; Bonnie N Joe; Joycelyn L Speight; Jean Pouliot; I-Chow Hsu Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2008-05-12 Impact factor: 2.362