Cargando…

A new plan quality objective function for determining optimal collimator combinations in prostate cancer treatment with stereotactic body radiation therapy using CyberKnife

Stereotactic body radiation therapy with CyberKnife for prostate cancer has long treatment times compared with conventional radiotherapy. This arises the need for designing treatment plans with short execution times. We propose an objective function for plan quality evaluation, which was used to det...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Varnava, Maria, Sumida, Iori, Mizuno, Hirokazu, Shiomi, Hiroya, Suzuki, Osamu, Yoshioka, Yasuo, Ogawa, Kazuhiko
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6258559/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30481228
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208086
_version_ 1783374520361418752
author Varnava, Maria
Sumida, Iori
Mizuno, Hirokazu
Shiomi, Hiroya
Suzuki, Osamu
Yoshioka, Yasuo
Ogawa, Kazuhiko
author_facet Varnava, Maria
Sumida, Iori
Mizuno, Hirokazu
Shiomi, Hiroya
Suzuki, Osamu
Yoshioka, Yasuo
Ogawa, Kazuhiko
author_sort Varnava, Maria
collection PubMed
description Stereotactic body radiation therapy with CyberKnife for prostate cancer has long treatment times compared with conventional radiotherapy. This arises the need for designing treatment plans with short execution times. We propose an objective function for plan quality evaluation, which was used to determine an optimal combination between small and large collimators based on short treatment times and clinically acceptable dose distributions. Data from 11 prostate cancer patients were used. For each patient, 20 plans were created based on all combinations between one small (⌀ 10–25 mm) and one large (⌀ 35–60 mm) Iris collimator size. The objective function was assigned to each combination as a penalty, such that plans with low penalties were considered superior. This function considered the achievement of dosimetric planning goals, tumor control probability, normal tissue complication probability, relative seriality parameter, and treatment time. Two methods were used to determine the optimal combination. First, we constructed heat maps representing the mean penalty values and standard deviations of the plans created for each collimator combination. The combination giving a plan with the smallest mean penalty and standard deviation was considered optimal. Second, we created two groups of superior plans: group A plans were selected by histogram analysis and group B plans were selected by choosing the plan with the lowest penalty from each patient. In both groups, the most used small and large collimators were assumed to represent the optimal combination. The optimal combinations obtained from the heat maps included the 25 mm as a small collimator, giving small/large collimator sizes of 25/35, 25/40, 25/50, and 25/60 mm. The superior-group analysis indicated that 25/50 mm was the optimal combination. The optimal Iris combination for prostate cancer treatment using CyberKnife was determined to be a collimator size between 25 mm (small) and 50 mm (large).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6258559
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62585592018-12-06 A new plan quality objective function for determining optimal collimator combinations in prostate cancer treatment with stereotactic body radiation therapy using CyberKnife Varnava, Maria Sumida, Iori Mizuno, Hirokazu Shiomi, Hiroya Suzuki, Osamu Yoshioka, Yasuo Ogawa, Kazuhiko PLoS One Research Article Stereotactic body radiation therapy with CyberKnife for prostate cancer has long treatment times compared with conventional radiotherapy. This arises the need for designing treatment plans with short execution times. We propose an objective function for plan quality evaluation, which was used to determine an optimal combination between small and large collimators based on short treatment times and clinically acceptable dose distributions. Data from 11 prostate cancer patients were used. For each patient, 20 plans were created based on all combinations between one small (⌀ 10–25 mm) and one large (⌀ 35–60 mm) Iris collimator size. The objective function was assigned to each combination as a penalty, such that plans with low penalties were considered superior. This function considered the achievement of dosimetric planning goals, tumor control probability, normal tissue complication probability, relative seriality parameter, and treatment time. Two methods were used to determine the optimal combination. First, we constructed heat maps representing the mean penalty values and standard deviations of the plans created for each collimator combination. The combination giving a plan with the smallest mean penalty and standard deviation was considered optimal. Second, we created two groups of superior plans: group A plans were selected by histogram analysis and group B plans were selected by choosing the plan with the lowest penalty from each patient. In both groups, the most used small and large collimators were assumed to represent the optimal combination. The optimal combinations obtained from the heat maps included the 25 mm as a small collimator, giving small/large collimator sizes of 25/35, 25/40, 25/50, and 25/60 mm. The superior-group analysis indicated that 25/50 mm was the optimal combination. The optimal Iris combination for prostate cancer treatment using CyberKnife was determined to be a collimator size between 25 mm (small) and 50 mm (large). Public Library of Science 2018-11-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6258559/ /pubmed/30481228 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208086 Text en © 2018 Varnava et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Varnava, Maria
Sumida, Iori
Mizuno, Hirokazu
Shiomi, Hiroya
Suzuki, Osamu
Yoshioka, Yasuo
Ogawa, Kazuhiko
A new plan quality objective function for determining optimal collimator combinations in prostate cancer treatment with stereotactic body radiation therapy using CyberKnife
title A new plan quality objective function for determining optimal collimator combinations in prostate cancer treatment with stereotactic body radiation therapy using CyberKnife
title_full A new plan quality objective function for determining optimal collimator combinations in prostate cancer treatment with stereotactic body radiation therapy using CyberKnife
title_fullStr A new plan quality objective function for determining optimal collimator combinations in prostate cancer treatment with stereotactic body radiation therapy using CyberKnife
title_full_unstemmed A new plan quality objective function for determining optimal collimator combinations in prostate cancer treatment with stereotactic body radiation therapy using CyberKnife
title_short A new plan quality objective function for determining optimal collimator combinations in prostate cancer treatment with stereotactic body radiation therapy using CyberKnife
title_sort new plan quality objective function for determining optimal collimator combinations in prostate cancer treatment with stereotactic body radiation therapy using cyberknife
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6258559/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30481228
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208086
work_keys_str_mv AT varnavamaria anewplanqualityobjectivefunctionfordeterminingoptimalcollimatorcombinationsinprostatecancertreatmentwithstereotacticbodyradiationtherapyusingcyberknife
AT sumidaiori anewplanqualityobjectivefunctionfordeterminingoptimalcollimatorcombinationsinprostatecancertreatmentwithstereotacticbodyradiationtherapyusingcyberknife
AT mizunohirokazu anewplanqualityobjectivefunctionfordeterminingoptimalcollimatorcombinationsinprostatecancertreatmentwithstereotacticbodyradiationtherapyusingcyberknife
AT shiomihiroya anewplanqualityobjectivefunctionfordeterminingoptimalcollimatorcombinationsinprostatecancertreatmentwithstereotacticbodyradiationtherapyusingcyberknife
AT suzukiosamu anewplanqualityobjectivefunctionfordeterminingoptimalcollimatorcombinationsinprostatecancertreatmentwithstereotacticbodyradiationtherapyusingcyberknife
AT yoshiokayasuo anewplanqualityobjectivefunctionfordeterminingoptimalcollimatorcombinationsinprostatecancertreatmentwithstereotacticbodyradiationtherapyusingcyberknife
AT ogawakazuhiko anewplanqualityobjectivefunctionfordeterminingoptimalcollimatorcombinationsinprostatecancertreatmentwithstereotacticbodyradiationtherapyusingcyberknife
AT varnavamaria newplanqualityobjectivefunctionfordeterminingoptimalcollimatorcombinationsinprostatecancertreatmentwithstereotacticbodyradiationtherapyusingcyberknife
AT sumidaiori newplanqualityobjectivefunctionfordeterminingoptimalcollimatorcombinationsinprostatecancertreatmentwithstereotacticbodyradiationtherapyusingcyberknife
AT mizunohirokazu newplanqualityobjectivefunctionfordeterminingoptimalcollimatorcombinationsinprostatecancertreatmentwithstereotacticbodyradiationtherapyusingcyberknife
AT shiomihiroya newplanqualityobjectivefunctionfordeterminingoptimalcollimatorcombinationsinprostatecancertreatmentwithstereotacticbodyradiationtherapyusingcyberknife
AT suzukiosamu newplanqualityobjectivefunctionfordeterminingoptimalcollimatorcombinationsinprostatecancertreatmentwithstereotacticbodyradiationtherapyusingcyberknife
AT yoshiokayasuo newplanqualityobjectivefunctionfordeterminingoptimalcollimatorcombinationsinprostatecancertreatmentwithstereotacticbodyradiationtherapyusingcyberknife
AT ogawakazuhiko newplanqualityobjectivefunctionfordeterminingoptimalcollimatorcombinationsinprostatecancertreatmentwithstereotacticbodyradiationtherapyusingcyberknife