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)...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Han, Sintay, Benjamin, Pearman, Keith, Shang, Qingyang, Hayes, Lane, Maurer, Jacqueline, Vanderstraeten, Caroline, Wiant, David
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