Cargando…
Comparison of the progressive resolution optimizer and photon optimizer in VMAT optimization for stereotactic treatments
The photon optimization (PO) algorithm was recently released by Varian Medical Systems to improve volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) optimization within Eclipse (Version 13.5). The purpose of this study is to compare the PO algorithm with its predecessor, progressive resolution optimizer (PRO)...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6036352/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29781138 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12355 |
_version_ | 1783338149763612672 |
---|---|
author | Liu, Han Sintay, Benjamin Pearman, Keith Shang, Qingyang Hayes, Lane Maurer, Jacqueline Vanderstraeten, Caroline Wiant, David |
author_facet | Liu, Han Sintay, Benjamin Pearman, Keith Shang, Qingyang Hayes, Lane Maurer, Jacqueline Vanderstraeten, Caroline Wiant, David |
author_sort | Liu, Han |
collection | PubMed |
description | The photon optimization (PO) algorithm was recently released by Varian Medical Systems to improve volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) optimization within Eclipse (Version 13.5). The purpose of this study is to compare the PO algorithm with its predecessor, progressive resolution optimizer (PRO) for lung SBRT and brain SRS treatments. A total of 30 patients were selected retrospectively. Previously, all the plans were generated with the PRO algorithm within Eclipse Version 13.6. In the new version of PO algorithm (Version 15), dynamic conformal arcs (DCA) were first conformed to the target, then VMAT inverse planning was performed to achieve the desired dose distributions. PTV coverages were forced to be identical for the same patient for a fair comparison. SBRT plan quality was assessed based on selected dose–volume parameters, including the conformity index, V (20) for lung, V (30 Gy) for chest wall, and D (0.035 cc) for other critical organs. SRS plan quality was evaluated based on the conformity index and normal tissue volumes encompassed by the 12 and 6 Gy isodose lines (V (12) and V (6)). The modulation complexity score (MCS) was used to compare plan complexity of two algorithms. No statistically significant differences between the PRO and PO algorithms were found for any of the dosimetric parameters studied, which indicates both algorithms produce comparable plan quality. Significant improvements in the gamma passing rate (increased from 97.0% to 99.2% for SBRT and 96.1% to 98.4% for SRS), MCS (average increase of 0.15 for SBRT and 0.10 for SRS), and delivery efficiency (MU reduction of 29.8% for SBRT and 28.3% for SRS) were found for the PO algorithm. MCS showed a strong correlation with the gamma passing rate, and an inverse correlation with total MUs used. The PO algorithm offers comparable plan quality to the PRO, while minimizing MLC complexity, thereby improving the delivery efficiency and accuracy. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6036352 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-60363522018-07-12 Comparison of the progressive resolution optimizer and photon optimizer in VMAT optimization for stereotactic treatments Liu, Han Sintay, Benjamin Pearman, Keith Shang, Qingyang Hayes, Lane Maurer, Jacqueline Vanderstraeten, Caroline Wiant, David J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics The photon optimization (PO) algorithm was recently released by Varian Medical Systems to improve volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) optimization within Eclipse (Version 13.5). The purpose of this study is to compare the PO algorithm with its predecessor, progressive resolution optimizer (PRO) for lung SBRT and brain SRS treatments. A total of 30 patients were selected retrospectively. Previously, all the plans were generated with the PRO algorithm within Eclipse Version 13.6. In the new version of PO algorithm (Version 15), dynamic conformal arcs (DCA) were first conformed to the target, then VMAT inverse planning was performed to achieve the desired dose distributions. PTV coverages were forced to be identical for the same patient for a fair comparison. SBRT plan quality was assessed based on selected dose–volume parameters, including the conformity index, V (20) for lung, V (30 Gy) for chest wall, and D (0.035 cc) for other critical organs. SRS plan quality was evaluated based on the conformity index and normal tissue volumes encompassed by the 12 and 6 Gy isodose lines (V (12) and V (6)). The modulation complexity score (MCS) was used to compare plan complexity of two algorithms. No statistically significant differences between the PRO and PO algorithms were found for any of the dosimetric parameters studied, which indicates both algorithms produce comparable plan quality. Significant improvements in the gamma passing rate (increased from 97.0% to 99.2% for SBRT and 96.1% to 98.4% for SRS), MCS (average increase of 0.15 for SBRT and 0.10 for SRS), and delivery efficiency (MU reduction of 29.8% for SBRT and 28.3% for SRS) were found for the PO algorithm. MCS showed a strong correlation with the gamma passing rate, and an inverse correlation with total MUs used. The PO algorithm offers comparable plan quality to the PRO, while minimizing MLC complexity, thereby improving the delivery efficiency and accuracy. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-05-20 /pmc/articles/PMC6036352/ /pubmed/29781138 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12355 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Radiation Oncology Physics Liu, Han Sintay, Benjamin Pearman, Keith Shang, Qingyang Hayes, Lane Maurer, Jacqueline Vanderstraeten, Caroline Wiant, David Comparison of the progressive resolution optimizer and photon optimizer in VMAT optimization for stereotactic treatments |
title | Comparison of the progressive resolution optimizer and photon optimizer in VMAT optimization for stereotactic treatments |
title_full | Comparison of the progressive resolution optimizer and photon optimizer in VMAT optimization for stereotactic treatments |
title_fullStr | Comparison of the progressive resolution optimizer and photon optimizer in VMAT optimization for stereotactic treatments |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of the progressive resolution optimizer and photon optimizer in VMAT optimization for stereotactic treatments |
title_short | Comparison of the progressive resolution optimizer and photon optimizer in VMAT optimization for stereotactic treatments |
title_sort | comparison of the progressive resolution optimizer and photon optimizer in vmat optimization for stereotactic treatments |
topic | Radiation Oncology Physics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6036352/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29781138 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12355 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT liuhan comparisonoftheprogressiveresolutionoptimizerandphotonoptimizerinvmatoptimizationforstereotactictreatments AT sintaybenjamin comparisonoftheprogressiveresolutionoptimizerandphotonoptimizerinvmatoptimizationforstereotactictreatments AT pearmankeith comparisonoftheprogressiveresolutionoptimizerandphotonoptimizerinvmatoptimizationforstereotactictreatments AT shangqingyang comparisonoftheprogressiveresolutionoptimizerandphotonoptimizerinvmatoptimizationforstereotactictreatments AT hayeslane comparisonoftheprogressiveresolutionoptimizerandphotonoptimizerinvmatoptimizationforstereotactictreatments AT maurerjacqueline comparisonoftheprogressiveresolutionoptimizerandphotonoptimizerinvmatoptimizationforstereotactictreatments AT vanderstraetencaroline comparisonoftheprogressiveresolutionoptimizerandphotonoptimizerinvmatoptimizationforstereotactictreatments AT wiantdavid comparisonoftheprogressiveresolutionoptimizerandphotonoptimizerinvmatoptimizationforstereotactictreatments |