Email this article 
Post a Comment 
Assessment and performance evaluation of photon optimizer (PO) vs. dose volume optimizer (DVO) for IMRT and progressive resolution optimizer (PRO) for RapidArc planning using a virtual phantom
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of the study was to present the quantitative and qualitative evaluation of newly incorporated photon optimizer (PO) versus previously was used independent dose volume optimizer (DVO) for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and progressive resolution optimizer (PRO) for Rapid-arc/ volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in version 13.5 of Eclipse treatment planning system (ETPS).
Methods: We accomplished this study with the help of cylindrical virtual phantom created in the ETPS. Six individual phantoms study sets (PSS) were generated and different material density value was assigned in order to evaluate the behavior optimizers in the presence of tissue heterogeneity. Several independent plans were generated for IMRT and Rapid-arc by changing optimizer module PO, DVO, and PRO for 6 MV, 15 MV flattened beam and 6 MV-flattening filter free (FFF) beam.
Results: The self-governing evaluations of PO versus DVO for IMRT plan and PO versus PRO for Rapid-arc/VMAT plans were performed. We estimated and compared various distinct parameters such as maximum dose, minimum dose, mean dose, conformity index (CI), quality index (QI), homogeneity index (HI), integral plan monitor unit (MU) and dose volume histogram (DVH). The percentages of the average variation over all PSS and beam energy between PO versus DVO optimized plan quality parameters such as planning target volume (PTV) maximum, minimum, mean doses, CI, QI and HI were 0.23%, 1.67%, 0.09%, 20.4%, 0.77% and 0.52% , respectively, whereas for PO versus PRO were 1.18%, 3.38%, 0.19%, 8.11%, 2.78%, and 1.28%, respectively.
Conclusion: The results presented in this study showed that PO generates plans with better quality in shorter time compared to DVO and PRO for both IMRT and Rapid-arc/VMAT, respectively.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Bortfeld T. Optimized planning using physical objectives and constraints. Semin Radiat Oncol.1999;9:20-34.
Webb S. The physical basis of IMRT and inverse planning. Br J Radiol. 2003;76:678–89.
Censor Y, Palta JR, Mackie TR. Mathematical optimization for the inverse problem of intensity modulated radiation therapy the state of the art. AAPM Med Phys Publishing, Madison. 2003;25-49.
Deasy JO. Multiple local minima in radiotherapy optimization problems with dose-volume constraints. Med Phys. 1997;24:1157-61.
Shepard DM, Earl MA, Li XA,et al. Direct aperture optimization: a turnkey solution for step-and-shoot IMRT. Med Phys. 2002;29:1007–18.
Hardemark B. Liander A. RehbinderH. Lof J. Direct machine parameter optimization with Ray Machine in Pinnacle3. White paper 2003; Ray- Search Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden.
Otto K. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc. Med Phys. 2008;35(1), 310-7.
Vanetti E, Nicolini G, Nord J. On the role of the optimization algorithm of RapidArc volumetric modulated arc therapy on plan quality and efficiency. Med Phys. 2011;38(11):5844-56.
Li Y, Rodrigues A, Li T, et al. Impact of dose calculation accuracy during optimization on lung IMRT plan quality. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015;16(1):5137.
Zacarias AS, Mills MD. Algorithm for correcting optimization convergence errors in Eclipse. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2009 Oct 14;10(4):3061.
Jeraj R, Keall PJ, Sieber JV. The effect of dose calculation accuracy on inverse treatment planning. Phys Med Biol. 2002;47(3):391–407.
Jeraj R, Wu C, Mackie T R. Optimizer convergence and local minima errors and their clinical importance. Phys Med Biol. 2003;48(17):2809–27.
Dogan N, Siebers JV, Keall PJ, et al. Improving IMRT dose accuracy via deliverable Monte Carlo optimization for the treatment of head and neck cancer patients. Med Phys. 2006;3(11):4033–43.
Mihaylov I B, Siebers J V. Evaluation of dose prediction errors and optimization convergence errors of deliver¬able-based head-and-neck IMRT plans computed with a superposition/convolution dose algorithm. Med Phys. 2008;35(8):3722–27.
Tol JP, Dahele M, Peltola J, et al. Automatic interactive optimization for volumetric modulated arc therapy planning. Radiat Oncol. 2015;10:75.
Kan MW, Leung LH, Yu PK. The performance of the progressive resolution optimizer (PRO) for RapidArc planning in targets with low-density media. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013;14(6):4382.
Feuvret L, Noël G, Mazeron JJ, Bey P. Conformity index: a review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;64(2):333-42.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14319/ijcto.43.7
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
International Journal of Cancer Therapy and Oncology (ISSN 2330-4049)
© International Journal of Cancer Therapy and Oncology (IJCTO)
To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the 'ijcto.org' domain to your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.
Number of visits since October, 2013