No abstract

Linear accelerators from the same vendor in a radiation therapy center are usually beam-matched following Vendor's acceptance criteria. This protocol is limited to check the difference at particular points on the ionization curve for depth dose or beam profiles. This article describes different tests done after commissioning to evaluate the level of agreement between matched beams of two ONCOR Impression plus linear accelerators from Siemens. Total scatter factors, collimator scatter factors, wedge transmission factors were measured in water for 6-MV photon. All these factors for ONCOR2 were within ±1% of those values for ONCOR1. Along with these point dose measurements we have essentially used γ-index to compare the planar dose distribution from two beam-matched accelerators. For this study a set of ready packed EDR2 films was exposed on both accelerators. The set consisted of films for percentage depth dose, beam profiles, a pyramid shape, multileaf collimator's positional and dose delivery accuracy, and a film to compare head scatter at tray level. To include treatment planning system calculations, a film kept in axial plane was exposed to 3DCRT and IMRT plans with actual gantry angles and monitor units. These films were analyzed for γ in OmniPro IMRT software using different combinations of Δdose and - Δdistances. All these films have shown good agreement for - Δdistance of 3 mm and Δdose of 3 %.

This study demonstrates that the algorithm can be effectively applied to IMRT scenarios to get fast and case specific beam angle configurations.

In static intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), the fundamental factors that determine the quality of a plan are the number of beams and their angles. The objective of this study is to investigate the effect of beam angle optimization (BAO) on the beam number in IMRT. We used six head and neck cases to carry out the study. Basically the methodology uses a parameter called “Beam Intensity Profile Perturbation Score” (BIPPS) to determine the suitable beam angles in IMRT. We used two set of plans in which one set contains plans with equispaced beam configuration starting from beam numbers 3 to 18, and another set contains plans with optimal beam angles chosen using the in‐house BAO algorithm. We used quadratic dose‐based single criteria objective function as a measure of the quality of a plan. The objective function scores obtained for equispaced beam plans and optimal beam angle plans for six head and neck cases were plotted against the beam numbers in a single graphical plot for effective comparison. It is observed that the optimization of beam angles reduces the beam numbers required to produce clinically acceptable dose distribution in IMRT of head and neck tumors. Especially N0.1 (represents the beam number at which the objective function reaches a value of 0.1) is considerably reduced by beam angle optimization in almost all the cases included in the study. We believe that the experimental findings of this study will be helpful in understanding the interplay between beam angle optimization and beam number selection process in IMRT which, in turn, can be used to improve the performance of BAO algorithms and beam number selection process in IMRT.PACS number: 87.55.de

The objective of this work is to compare the planning target volume (PTV)-based intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans with robustly optimized IMPT plans using the robust optimization tools available in Pinnacle Treatment Planning System. We performed the study in five cases of different anatomic sites (brain, head and neck, lung, pancreas, and prostate). Pinnacle IMPT nonclinical version was used for IMPT planning. Two types of IMPT plans were created for each case. One is PTV-based conventionally optimized IMPT plan and the other is robustly optimized plan considering setup uncertainties. For the PTV-based plans, margins were on top of clinical target volume (CTV) to account for the setup errors, whereas in the robustly optimized plan, the setup errors were directly incorporated into the optimization process. The plan evaluation included target (CTV) coverage and dose uniformity. Our interest was to see how the target coverage and dose uniformity were perturbed on imposing setup errors in +X, −X, +Y, −Y, +Z, and −Z directions for both PTV-based and robust optimization (RO)-based plans. On the average, RO-based IMPT plans have shown a good consistency of target coverage and dose uniformity for all six setup errors scenarios as compared to PTV-based plans. In addition, RO-based plans have a better target coverage and dose uniformity under uncertainty conditions as compared to the PTV-based plans. The study demonstrates the superiority of robustly optimized IMPT plans over the PTV-based IMPT plans in terms of dose distribution under the uncertainty conditions.

Purpose: A new algorithm for automated determination of Objective Function Parameters (OFPs) in inverse planning is proposed. Method and Materials: While in theory, optimization in inverse planning is a one‐step automatic process, in practice, planner intervention is often required to carry out a multiple trial‐and‐error process where several parameters are sequentially varied until an acceptable compromise is achieved. We propose an algorithm for automated determination of IMRT Objective Function Parameters (OFPs). The algorithm is based on a new approach called “Adapted Dose Prescription (ADP)” wherein the dose prescriptions are automatically tailored to the sensitivity of target and OARs, which immediately results in a treatment plan meeting the clinical goals. The sensitivity of a structure is estimated by calculating the difference between the expected and obtained dose values after the end of an optimization trial. We incorporated the proposed algorithm with Fast Simulated Annealing (FSA) scheme using MATLAB software package to generate Aperture‐based IMRT plans for various complex patient cases. The beam placements, aperture shaping and dose calculations were done using CMS XiO planning system in our clinic. Results: So far, three patients planned using the proposed algorithm has been treated in our clinic. Our observation is that the algorithm automatically fetches a set of OFPs that immediately results in a clinically acceptable dose distribution. This approach significantly reduces the time taken for optimization by reducing the no. of optimization trials, while providing dose distribution that is comparable to that of plans obtained using KonRad inverse planning system. Conclusion: The proposed algorithm facilitates the production of inverse solutions which, without the planner's intervention, precisely satisfy the specified constraints. Moreover, the results demonstrate that the proposed algorithm can be effectively used for clinical applications.

No abstract

This study aims to evaluate the performance of a new algorithm for optimization of beam weights in anatomy-based intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). The algorithm uses a numerical technique called Gaussian-Elimination that derives the optimum beam weights in an exact or non-iterative way. The distinct feature of the algorithm is that it takes only fraction of a second to optimize the beam weights, irrespective of the complexity of the given case. The algorithm has been implemented using MATLAB with a Graphical User Interface (GUI) option for convenient specification of dose constraints and penalties to different structures. We have tested the numerical and clinical capabilities of the proposed algorithm in several patient cases in comparison with KonRad® inverse planning system. The comparative analysis shows that the algorithm can generate anatomy-based IMRT plans with about 50% reduction in number of MUs and 60% reduction in number of apertures, while producing dose distribution comparable to that of beamlet-based IMRT plans. Hence, it is clearly evident from the study that the proposed algorithm can be effectively used for clinical applications.