Giulianne Rivelli R Zaratim, Luis Felipe Oliveira E Silva, Ricardo G Dos Reis, Cristiano Jacques M R Mendes, Marília Miranda F Gomes
{"title":"Fluence smoothing evaluation for whole-breast automatically generated treatment plans.","authors":"Giulianne Rivelli R Zaratim, Luis Felipe Oliveira E Silva, Ricardo G Dos Reis, Cristiano Jacques M R Mendes, Marília Miranda F Gomes","doi":"10.1002/acm2.14564","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to identify the fluence smoothing threshold that preserves the dosimetric quality of planning for breast cancer intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We conducted automated treatment planning for 60 breast cancer patients using the Eclipse Scripting Application Programming Interface. The plans included four-field IMRT, emphasizing smoothing weight combinations while maintaining a 4:3 aspect ratio between the X and Y directions. Four weight sets (40 × 30, 100 × 75, 150 × 115.2, and 200 × 150) were tested, resulting in four plans per patient. A total dose of 40.05 Gy over 15 fractions was prescribed. Optimization weigths were dynamically adjusted based on dosimetric evaluations, with the maximum coverage priority set at 200. Statistical analyses were used to assess the dosimetric data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median planning target volume (PTV) coverage varied across smoothing levels, with default smoothing (40 × 30) providing superior median PTV coverage. Lung constraints showed significant differences mainly at higher smoothing levels. Heart constraints exhibited less variation between smoothing levels, with significant differences primarily in the maximum and mean doses for right-sided patients and between default and higher smoothing levels for left-sided patients. No significant differences were observed in contralateral breast constraints among all smoothing levels, except at the maximum level for right-sided patients. Monitor units decreased with increasing smoothing weight, showing significant differences between default and other settings. For right-sided patients, the median number of monitor units varied from 1346 (40 × 30) to 754 (200 × 150), and for left-sided patients, from 1333 (40 × 30) to 804 (200 × 150). Chi-square tests revealed differences in dose constraint adherence between default and maximum smoothing levels, particularly in target coverage.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings suggest that using a ratio of smoothing weights to target priorities between 1:1.5 and 1:1.6 leads to a favorable balance between complexity and dosimetric plan quality, with no significant impacts on dose constraint adherence.</p>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":" ","pages":"e14564"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14564","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to identify the fluence smoothing threshold that preserves the dosimetric quality of planning for breast cancer intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).
Material and methods: We conducted automated treatment planning for 60 breast cancer patients using the Eclipse Scripting Application Programming Interface. The plans included four-field IMRT, emphasizing smoothing weight combinations while maintaining a 4:3 aspect ratio between the X and Y directions. Four weight sets (40 × 30, 100 × 75, 150 × 115.2, and 200 × 150) were tested, resulting in four plans per patient. A total dose of 40.05 Gy over 15 fractions was prescribed. Optimization weigths were dynamically adjusted based on dosimetric evaluations, with the maximum coverage priority set at 200. Statistical analyses were used to assess the dosimetric data.
Results: The median planning target volume (PTV) coverage varied across smoothing levels, with default smoothing (40 × 30) providing superior median PTV coverage. Lung constraints showed significant differences mainly at higher smoothing levels. Heart constraints exhibited less variation between smoothing levels, with significant differences primarily in the maximum and mean doses for right-sided patients and between default and higher smoothing levels for left-sided patients. No significant differences were observed in contralateral breast constraints among all smoothing levels, except at the maximum level for right-sided patients. Monitor units decreased with increasing smoothing weight, showing significant differences between default and other settings. For right-sided patients, the median number of monitor units varied from 1346 (40 × 30) to 754 (200 × 150), and for left-sided patients, from 1333 (40 × 30) to 804 (200 × 150). Chi-square tests revealed differences in dose constraint adherence between default and maximum smoothing levels, particularly in target coverage.
Conclusion: Our findings suggest that using a ratio of smoothing weights to target priorities between 1:1.5 and 1:1.6 leads to a favorable balance between complexity and dosimetric plan quality, with no significant impacts on dose constraint adherence.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission.
JACMP will publish:
-Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500.
-Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed.
-Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references.
-Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents.
-Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews.
-Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics.
-Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic