Comparison of IPSA and HIPO inverse planning optimization algorithms for prostate HDR brachytherapy

Publications have reported the benefits of using high‐dose‐rate brachytherapy (HDRB) for the treatment of prostate cancer, since it provides similar biochemical control as other treatments while showing lowest long‐term complications to the organs at risk (OAR). With the inclusion of anatomy‐based inverse planning optimizers, HDRB has the advantage of potentially allowing dose escalation. Among the algorithms used, the Inverse Planning Simulated Annealing (IPSA) optimizer is widely employed since it provides adequate dose coverage, minimizing dose to the OAR, but it is known to generate large dwell times in particular positions of the catheter. As an alternative, the Hybrid Inverse treatment Planning Optimization (HIPO) algorithm was recently implemented in Oncentra Brachytherapy V. 4.3. The aim of this work was to compare, with the aid of radiobiological models, plans obtained with IPSA and HIPO to assess their use in our clinical practice. Thirty patients were calculated with IPSA and HIPO to achieve our department's clinical constraints. To evaluate their performance, dosimetric data were collected: Prostate PTV [Formula: see text] , and [Formula: see text] , Urethra [Formula: see text] , Rectum [Formula: see text] , and conformity indices. Additionally tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were calculated with the BioSuite software. The HIPO optimization was performed firstly with Prostate PTV ([Formula: see text]) and then with Urethra as priority 1 ([Formula: see text]). Initial optimization constraints were then modified to see the effects on dosimetric parameters, TCPs, and NTCPs. HIPO optimizations could reduce TCPs up to 10%–20% for all PTVs lower than 74 cm(3). For the urethra, IPSA and [Formula: see text] provided similar NTCPs for the majority of volume sizes, whereas [Formula: see text] resulted in large NTCP values. These findings were in agreement with dosimetric values. By increasing the PTV maximum dose constraints for [Formula: see text] plans, TCPs were found to be in agreement with IPSA without affecting the urethral NTCPs. PACS numbers: 87.55.‐x, 87.55.de, 87.55.dh, 87.53.Jw