IMPACT OF SEGMENTS NUMBER REDUCTION IN IMRT PLANNING
Main Article Content
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate the planning and dosimetric advantages of direct aperture optimization (DAO) over beamlet optimization in IMRT treatment of head and neck (H/N) and prostate cancers.
Materials and methods: a brain metastatic case with multiple lesions, five head and neck, as well as five prostate patients were planned using the beamlet optimizer in Elekta-Xio© ver 4.6 IMRT treatment planning system. Based on our experience in beamlet IMRT optimization, PTVs in brain were prescribed to 66Gy using 5 fields, PTVs in H/N plans were prescribed to 70 Gy delivered by 7 fields, and prostate PTVs were prescribed to 76 Gy using nine fields. In all plans, fields were set to be equally spaced. All cases were re-planed using Direct Aperture optimizer (DAO) in Prowess Panther© ver 5.01 IMRT planning system at same configurations and dose constraints. Plans were evaluated according to ICRU criteria, number of segments, number of monitor units and planning time.
Results: In brain case, beamlet optimization was better than DAO for both GTVs and PTVs in 95% isodose coverage, and the hot area was about 7% more in beamlet plan than DAO plan. For OAR, results showed an improvement in OAR sparing up to more than 35% in rt. eye, lt. eye, rt. optic nerve and lt. optic nerve when using DAO for planning, while optic chiasma sparing was about 20% also in beamlet optimizer plan.
For H/N plans, the near maximum dose (D2) and the dose that covers 95% (D95) of PTV has improved by 4% in DAO. For organs at risk (OAR), DAO reduced the volume covered by 30% (V30) inspinal cord, right parotid, and left parotid by 60%, 54%, and 53% respectively. This considerable dosimetric quality improvement achieved using 25% less planning time and lower number of segments and monitor units by 46% and 51% respectively.
In DAO prostate plans, Both D2 and D95 for the PTV wereimproved by only 2%. The V30 of right femur, left femur and bladder were improved by 35%, 15% and 3% respectively. On the contrary, the rectum V30 got even worse by 9%. However, number of monitor units, and number of segments decreased by 20% and 25% respectively. Moreover the planning time reduced significantly too.
Conclusion: DAO introduces considerable advantages over beamlet optimization for different sites of cancer, in regards to organ at risk sparing. While no significant improvement occurred in the PTV ICRU reporting dose.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
De Gersem W, Claus F, De Wagter C, De Neve W. An anatomy-based beam segmentation tool for intensity-modulated radiation therapy and its application to head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;51(3):849–59. 4.
Shepard DM, Earl MA, Li XA, Naqvi S, Yu C. Direct aperture optimization: a turnkey solution for step-and-shoot IMRT. Med Phys. 2002;29(6):1007–18. 5.
Siebers JV, Lauterbach M, Keall PJ, Mohan R. Incorporating multi-leaf collimator leaf sequencing into iterative IMRT optimization. Med Phys. 2002;29(6):952–59. 6.
Cotrutz C and Xing L. Segment-based dose optimization using a genetic algorithm. Phys Med Biol. 2003;48(18):2987–98. 7.
Y. Li, Yao J, Yao D. Genetic algorithm based deliverable segments optimization for static intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol. 2003;48(20):3353–74. 8.
Bedford JL and Webb S. Constrained segment shapes in direct-aperture optimization for step-and-shoot IMRT. Med Phys. 2006;33(4):944–58. 9.
Bergman AM, Bush K, Milette MP, Popescu IA, Otto K, Duzenli C. Direct aperture optimization for IMRT using Monte Carlo generated beamlets. Med Phys. 2006;33(10):3666–79. 10.
Bedford JL and Webb S. Direct-aperture optimization applied to selection of beam orientations in intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2007;52(2):479–98. 11.
Mestrovic A, Milette MP, Nichol A, Clark BG, Otto K. Direct aperture optimization for online adaptive radiation therapy. Med Phys. 2007;34(5):1631–46. 12.
Jones S and Williams M. Clinical evaluation of direct aperture optimization when applied to head-and-neck IMRT. Med Dosim. 2008;33(1):86–92. 13.
Ludlum E and Xia P. Comparison of IMRT planning with two-step and onestep optimization: a way to simplify IMRT. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53 (3):807 12.
Van Asselen B, Schwarz M, van Vliet-Vroegindeweij C, Lebesque JV, Mijnheer BJ, Damen EM. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy of breast cancer using direct aperture optimization. Radiother Oncol. 2006;79(2):162–69. 14.
Ahunbay EE, Chen GP, Thatcher S, et al. Direct aperture optimization-based intensity-modulated radiotherapy for 15. whole breast irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;67(4):1248–58.
Lydon, J.M. Theoretical and experimental validation of treatment planning for narrow MLC defined photon fields. Phys. Med. Biol. 50:2701–14; 2005.
Keller-Reichenbecher MA, Bortfeld T, Levegrun S, Stein J, Preiser K, Schlegel W (1999) Intensity modulation with the “step and shoot” technique using a commercial MLC: a planning study. Multileaf collimator. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 45:1315–1324
Bedford, J.L.; Webb, S. Constrained segment shapes in directaperture optimization for step-and-shoot IMRT. Med. Phys. 33: 944–58; 2006.
Zhu, X.R.; Schultz, C.J.; Gillin, M.T. Planning quality and delivery efficiency of sMLC delivered IMRT treatment of oropharyngeal cancers evaluated by RTOG H-0022 dosimetric criteria. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 5:80–95; 2004
International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements 2010: “Prescribing, Recording, and Reporting Photon-Beam Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT)”, Journal of the ICRU Vol 10 No 1 (2010) Report 83
Dobler B, Pohl F, Bogner L, Koelb O. Comparison of direct machine parameter optimization versus fluence optimization with sequential sequencing in IMRT of hypopharyngeal cancer. RadiatOncol (2007), 2:33 [http://www.ro-journal.com/con tent/2/1/33].