Cargando…

Clinical impact of the VOLO optimizer on treatment plan quality and clinical treatment efficiency for CyberKnife

With the recent CyberKnife treatment planning system (TPS) upgrade from Precision 1.0 to Precision 2.0, the new VOLO optimizer was released for plan optimization. The VOLO optimizer sought to overcome some of the limitations seen with the Sequential optimizer from previous TPS versions. The purpose...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schüler, Emil, Lo, Anthony, Chuang, Cynthia F., Soltys, Scott G., Pollom, Erqi L., Wang, Lei
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7286021/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32212374
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12851
_version_ 1783544805451628544
author Schüler, Emil
Lo, Anthony
Chuang, Cynthia F.
Soltys, Scott G.
Pollom, Erqi L.
Wang, Lei
author_facet Schüler, Emil
Lo, Anthony
Chuang, Cynthia F.
Soltys, Scott G.
Pollom, Erqi L.
Wang, Lei
author_sort Schüler, Emil
collection PubMed
description With the recent CyberKnife treatment planning system (TPS) upgrade from Precision 1.0 to Precision 2.0, the new VOLO optimizer was released for plan optimization. The VOLO optimizer sought to overcome some of the limitations seen with the Sequential optimizer from previous TPS versions. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical impact of the VOLO optimizer on treatment plan quality and clinical treatment efficiency as compared to the Sequential optimizer. Treatment plan quality was evaluated in four categories of patients: Brain Simple (BS), Brain Complex (BC), Spine Complex (SC), and Prostate (PC). A total of 60 treatment plans were compared using both the Sequential and VOLO optimizers with Iris and MLC collimation with the same clinical constraints. Metrics evaluated included estimated treatment time, monitor units (MUs) delivered, conformity index (CI), and gradient index (GI). Furthermore, the clinical impact of the VOLO optimizer was evaluated through statistical analysis of the patient population treated during the 4 months before (n = 297) and 4 months after (n = 285) VOLO introduction. Significant MU and time reductions were observed for all four categories planned. MU reduction ranged from −14% (BS Iris) to −52% (BC MLC), and time reduction ranged from −11% (BS Iris) to −22% (BC MLC). The statistical analysis of patient population before and after VOLO introduction for patients using 6D Skull tracking with fixed cone, 6D Skull tracking with Iris, and Xsight Spine tracking with Iris were −4.6%, −22.2%, and −17.8% for treatment time reduction, −1.1%, −22.0%, and −28.4% for beam reduction and −3.2%, −21.8%, and −28.1% for MU reduction, respectively. The VOLO optimizer maintains or improves the plan quality while decreases the plan complexity and improves treatment efficiency. We anticipate an increase in patient throughput with the introduction of the VOLO optimizer.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7286021
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72860212020-06-11 Clinical impact of the VOLO optimizer on treatment plan quality and clinical treatment efficiency for CyberKnife Schüler, Emil Lo, Anthony Chuang, Cynthia F. Soltys, Scott G. Pollom, Erqi L. Wang, Lei J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics With the recent CyberKnife treatment planning system (TPS) upgrade from Precision 1.0 to Precision 2.0, the new VOLO optimizer was released for plan optimization. The VOLO optimizer sought to overcome some of the limitations seen with the Sequential optimizer from previous TPS versions. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical impact of the VOLO optimizer on treatment plan quality and clinical treatment efficiency as compared to the Sequential optimizer. Treatment plan quality was evaluated in four categories of patients: Brain Simple (BS), Brain Complex (BC), Spine Complex (SC), and Prostate (PC). A total of 60 treatment plans were compared using both the Sequential and VOLO optimizers with Iris and MLC collimation with the same clinical constraints. Metrics evaluated included estimated treatment time, monitor units (MUs) delivered, conformity index (CI), and gradient index (GI). Furthermore, the clinical impact of the VOLO optimizer was evaluated through statistical analysis of the patient population treated during the 4 months before (n = 297) and 4 months after (n = 285) VOLO introduction. Significant MU and time reductions were observed for all four categories planned. MU reduction ranged from −14% (BS Iris) to −52% (BC MLC), and time reduction ranged from −11% (BS Iris) to −22% (BC MLC). The statistical analysis of patient population before and after VOLO introduction for patients using 6D Skull tracking with fixed cone, 6D Skull tracking with Iris, and Xsight Spine tracking with Iris were −4.6%, −22.2%, and −17.8% for treatment time reduction, −1.1%, −22.0%, and −28.4% for beam reduction and −3.2%, −21.8%, and −28.1% for MU reduction, respectively. The VOLO optimizer maintains or improves the plan quality while decreases the plan complexity and improves treatment efficiency. We anticipate an increase in patient throughput with the introduction of the VOLO optimizer. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-03-25 /pmc/articles/PMC7286021/ /pubmed/32212374 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12851 Text en © 2020 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
Schüler, Emil
Lo, Anthony
Chuang, Cynthia F.
Soltys, Scott G.
Pollom, Erqi L.
Wang, Lei
Clinical impact of the VOLO optimizer on treatment plan quality and clinical treatment efficiency for CyberKnife
title Clinical impact of the VOLO optimizer on treatment plan quality and clinical treatment efficiency for CyberKnife
title_full Clinical impact of the VOLO optimizer on treatment plan quality and clinical treatment efficiency for CyberKnife
title_fullStr Clinical impact of the VOLO optimizer on treatment plan quality and clinical treatment efficiency for CyberKnife
title_full_unstemmed Clinical impact of the VOLO optimizer on treatment plan quality and clinical treatment efficiency for CyberKnife
title_short Clinical impact of the VOLO optimizer on treatment plan quality and clinical treatment efficiency for CyberKnife
title_sort clinical impact of the volo optimizer on treatment plan quality and clinical treatment efficiency for cyberknife
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7286021/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32212374
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12851
work_keys_str_mv AT schuleremil clinicalimpactofthevolooptimizerontreatmentplanqualityandclinicaltreatmentefficiencyforcyberknife
AT loanthony clinicalimpactofthevolooptimizerontreatmentplanqualityandclinicaltreatmentefficiencyforcyberknife
AT chuangcynthiaf clinicalimpactofthevolooptimizerontreatmentplanqualityandclinicaltreatmentefficiencyforcyberknife
AT soltysscottg clinicalimpactofthevolooptimizerontreatmentplanqualityandclinicaltreatmentefficiencyforcyberknife
AT pollomerqil clinicalimpactofthevolooptimizerontreatmentplanqualityandclinicaltreatmentefficiencyforcyberknife
AT wanglei clinicalimpactofthevolooptimizerontreatmentplanqualityandclinicaltreatmentefficiencyforcyberknife