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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |