渐进式分辨率优化器和光子优化器算法在RapidArc输送头颈部SIB治疗中的比较

IF 1.2 Q4 ONCOLOGY

Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy Pub Date : 2023-09-19 DOI:10.5603/rpor.97431

Venugopal Sundaram, D Khanna, Mohandass P, Titiksha Vasudeva

{"title":"渐进式分辨率优化器和光子优化器算法在RapidArc输送头颈部SIB治疗中的比较","authors":"Venugopal Sundaram, D Khanna, Mohandass P, Titiksha Vasudeva","doi":"10.5603/rpor.97431","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The aim of this study is to analyze and verify characterization of two different algorithms using Simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in head and neck (H&N) plans. Materials and methods: In our study 15 patients were selected, who received radiation therapy by using Eclipse volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) Progressive Resolution Optimizer (PRO) algorithm 15.1. The same cases were re-optimized using a Photon Optimizer (PO) algorithm 15.6.A total of 30 treatment plans (15 PRO-VMAT plans and 15 PO-VMAT plans) were produced in the present study. All plans were created using double full arcs, keeping the identical constraints, cost functions and optimization time. Plan evaluation was done using planning target volume (PTV) parameters (D98%, D95%, D50%, D2% mean dose and V105%), homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), Monitor unit (MU) per degree with control points (CP), organ at risk (OAR) doses and gamma verification (Portal dosimetry and ArcCHECK) values were evaluated. Treatment was delivered in Varian Truebeam 2.5, energy 6 MV with Millennium 120 MLC. Results: The PTV coverage (D95%) for PRO and PO were 98.7 ± 0.8 Gy, 98.8 ± 0.9 Gy, HI were 0.09 ± 0.02 and 0.09 ± 0.02, CI were 0.98 ± 0.01 and 0.99 ± 0.01. Monitor units (MU) for PRO and PO were 647.5 ± 137.9, 655.2 ± 138.4. The Portal dose results were (3%, 3mm (%) & 1 %, 1 mm (%)) for PO and PRO 100 ± 0.1, 95.1 ± 1.4 and 100 ± 0.1, 95.2 ± 1.3. For ArcCHECK were 99.9 ± 0.1, 94.7 ± 3.0 and 99.9 ± 0.1, 93.5 ± 3.9, respectively. Conclusion: Results showed that PTV coverage and OAR doses were comparable. For individual patients CI and HI of PO showed slightly higher values than PRO. MUs for PO were slightly increased as compared to PRO. MU per degree with each individual control points generated by PO showed a high degree of modulation compared to PRO. Hence, new PO optimizer can produce a comparable degree of plan while using the same PRO objectives.","PeriodicalId":47283,"journal":{"name":"Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy","volume":"210 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Progressive Resolution Optimizer and Photon Optimizer algorithms in RapidArc delivery for head and neck SIB treatments\",\"authors\":\"Venugopal Sundaram, D Khanna, Mohandass P, Titiksha Vasudeva\",\"doi\":\"10.5603/rpor.97431\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The aim of this study is to analyze and verify characterization of two different algorithms using Simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in head and neck (H&N) plans. Materials and methods: In our study 15 patients were selected, who received radiation therapy by using Eclipse volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) Progressive Resolution Optimizer (PRO) algorithm 15.1. The same cases were re-optimized using a Photon Optimizer (PO) algorithm 15.6.A total of 30 treatment plans (15 PRO-VMAT plans and 15 PO-VMAT plans) were produced in the present study. All plans were created using double full arcs, keeping the identical constraints, cost functions and optimization time. Plan evaluation was done using planning target volume (PTV) parameters (D98%, D95%, D50%, D2% mean dose and V105%), homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), Monitor unit (MU) per degree with control points (CP), organ at risk (OAR) doses and gamma verification (Portal dosimetry and ArcCHECK) values were evaluated. Treatment was delivered in Varian Truebeam 2.5, energy 6 MV with Millennium 120 MLC. Results: The PTV coverage (D95%) for PRO and PO were 98.7 ± 0.8 Gy, 98.8 ± 0.9 Gy, HI were 0.09 ± 0.02 and 0.09 ± 0.02, CI were 0.98 ± 0.01 and 0.99 ± 0.01. Monitor units (MU) for PRO and PO were 647.5 ± 137.9, 655.2 ± 138.4. The Portal dose results were (3%, 3mm (%) & 1 %, 1 mm (%)) for PO and PRO 100 ± 0.1, 95.1 ± 1.4 and 100 ± 0.1, 95.2 ± 1.3. For ArcCHECK were 99.9 ± 0.1, 94.7 ± 3.0 and 99.9 ± 0.1, 93.5 ± 3.9, respectively. Conclusion: Results showed that PTV coverage and OAR doses were comparable. For individual patients CI and HI of PO showed slightly higher values than PRO. MUs for PO were slightly increased as compared to PRO. MU per degree with each individual control points generated by PO showed a high degree of modulation compared to PRO. Hence, new PO optimizer can produce a comparable degree of plan while using the same PRO objectives.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47283,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy\",\"volume\":\"210 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5603/rpor.97431\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5603/rpor.97431","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究的目的是分析和验证在头颈部(H&N)计划中使用同步集成升压(SIB)的两种不同算法的特性。材料和方法:本研究选择15例患者，采用Eclipse体积调制弧线治疗(VMAT)渐进式分辨率优化(PRO)算法15.1进行放射治疗。使用光子优化器(PO)算法15.6对相同的案例进行重新优化。本研究共制定了30个治疗方案(15个PRO-VMAT方案和15个PO-VMAT方案)。所有平面图都使用双全弧线创建，保持相同的约束、成本函数和优化时间。采用计划目标体积(PTV)参数(D98%、D95%、D50%、D2%、平均剂量和V105%)、均匀性指数(HI)、符合性指数(CI)、每度监测单位(MU)与控制点(CP)、器官危险(OAR)剂量和伽玛验证(Portal剂量学和ArcCHECK)值进行评估。使用瓦里安Truebeam 2.5进行治疗，能量为6 MV，使用Millennium 120mlc。结果:PRO和PO的PTV覆盖率(D95%)分别为98.7±0.8 Gy、98.8±0.9 Gy, HI分别为0.09±0.02和0.09±0.02,CI分别为0.98±0.01和0.99±0.01。PRO和PO的监测单位(MU)分别为647.5±137.9、655.2±138.4。门脉剂量结果为(3%，3mm (%);1 %， 1 mm(%))用于PO和PRO 100±0.1,95.1±1.4和100±0.1,95.2±1.3。ArcCHECK分别为99.9±0.1、94.7±3.0和99.9±0.1、93.5±3.9。结论:PTV覆盖率和OAR剂量具有可比性。对于个体患者，PO的CI和HI值略高于PRO。与PRO相比，PO的MUs略有增加。与PRO相比，PO产生的每个单独控制点的每度MU显示出较高的调制程度。因此，在使用相同的PRO目标时，新的PO优化器可以产生相当程度的计划。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Comparison of Progressive Resolution Optimizer and Photon Optimizer algorithms in RapidArc delivery for head and neck SIB treatments

Background: The aim of this study is to analyze and verify characterization of two different algorithms using Simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in head and neck (H&N) plans. Materials and methods: In our study 15 patients were selected, who received radiation therapy by using Eclipse volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) Progressive Resolution Optimizer (PRO) algorithm 15.1. The same cases were re-optimized using a Photon Optimizer (PO) algorithm 15.6.A total of 30 treatment plans (15 PRO-VMAT plans and 15 PO-VMAT plans) were produced in the present study. All plans were created using double full arcs, keeping the identical constraints, cost functions and optimization time. Plan evaluation was done using planning target volume (PTV) parameters (D98%, D95%, D50%, D2% mean dose and V105%), homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), Monitor unit (MU) per degree with control points (CP), organ at risk (OAR) doses and gamma verification (Portal dosimetry and ArcCHECK) values were evaluated. Treatment was delivered in Varian Truebeam 2.5, energy 6 MV with Millennium 120 MLC. Results: The PTV coverage (D95%) for PRO and PO were 98.7 ± 0.8 Gy, 98.8 ± 0.9 Gy, HI were 0.09 ± 0.02 and 0.09 ± 0.02, CI were 0.98 ± 0.01 and 0.99 ± 0.01. Monitor units (MU) for PRO and PO were 647.5 ± 137.9, 655.2 ± 138.4. The Portal dose results were (3%, 3mm (%) & 1 %, 1 mm (%)) for PO and PRO 100 ± 0.1, 95.1 ± 1.4 and 100 ± 0.1, 95.2 ± 1.3. For ArcCHECK were 99.9 ± 0.1, 94.7 ± 3.0 and 99.9 ± 0.1, 93.5 ± 3.9, respectively. Conclusion: Results showed that PTV coverage and OAR doses were comparable. For individual patients CI and HI of PO showed slightly higher values than PRO. MUs for PO were slightly increased as compared to PRO. MU per degree with each individual control points generated by PO showed a high degree of modulation compared to PRO. Hence, new PO optimizer can produce a comparable degree of plan while using the same PRO objectives.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy Multiple-

CiteScore

2.80

自引率

8.30%

发文量

115

审稿时长

16 weeks

期刊介绍： Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy is an interdisciplinary bimonthly journal, publishing original contributions in clinical oncology and radiotherapy, as well as in radiotherapy physics, techniques and radiotherapy equipment. Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy is a journal of the Polish Society of Radiation Oncology, the Czech Society of Radiation Oncology, the Hungarian Society for Radiation Oncology, the Slovenian Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology, the Polish Study Group of Head and Neck Cancer, the Guild of Bulgarian Radiotherapists and the Greater Poland Cancer Centre, affiliated with the Spanish Society of Radiotherapy and Oncology, the Italian Association of Radiotherapy and the Portuguese Society of Radiotherapy - Oncology.