Volumetric‐modulated arc therapy using multicriteria optimization for body and extremity sarcoma

Young, Michael; Craft, David; Colbert, Caroline M; Remillard, Kyla; Vanbenthuysen, L.; Wang, Yi

doi:10.1120/jacmp.v17i6.6547

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…7 Studies have evaluated the effectiveness of MCO compared to the standard optimization (SO) inverse planning method with a clear improvement in treatment plans. [8][9][10][11][12] In addition, MCO allows a less experienced user of inverse planning to reduce planning time and to propose treatment plans of similar quality in complex locations such as the head and neck region (H&N). 13,14 The RayStation 8B release introduces a sliding window sequencing (SW).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dosimetric comparison of VMAT standard optimization (SO) and multi‐criteria optimization (MCO) treatment plans with standard mode delivery (STD) or sliding window (SW) for head and neck cancer

Rolland

Favrel

Fau

et al. 2023

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeA new development on the RayStation treatment planning system (TPS) allows a plan to be planned by imposing a constraint on the leaf sequencing: all leaves move in the same direction before moving again in the opposite direction to create a succession of sliding windows (SWs). The study aims to investigate this new leaf sequencing, coupled with standard optimization (SO) and multi‐criteria optimization (MCO) and to compare it with the standard sequencing (STD).MethodsSixty plans were replanned for 10 head and neck cancer patients (two dose levels simultaneously SIB, 56 and 70 Gy in 35 fractions). All plans were compared, and a Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was performed. Pre‐processing QA and metrics of multileaf collimator (MLC) complexity were studied.ResultsAll methodologies met the dose requirements for the planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OARs). SO demonstrates significantly best results for homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), and target coverage (TC). SO‐SW gives best results for PTVs (D98% and D2%) but the differences between techniques are less than 1%. Only the D2%,PTV‐56 Gy is higher with both MCO methods. MCO‐STD offer the best sparing OARs (parotids, spinal cord, larynx, oral cavity). The gamma passing rates (GPRs) with 3%/3 mm criteria between the measured and calculated dose distributions are higher than 95%, slightly lowest with SW. The number of monitor units (MUs) and MLC metrics are higher in SW show a higher modulation.ConclusionsAll plans are feasible for the treatment. A clear advantage of SO‐SW is that the treatment plan is more straightforward to planning by the user due to the more advanced modulation. MCO stands out for its ease of use and will allow a less experienced user to offer a better plan than in SO. In addition, MCO‐STD will reduce the dose to the OARs while maintaining good TC.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies have evaluated the effectiveness of MCO compared to the standard optimization (SO) inverse planning method with a clear improvement in treatment plans. 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dosimetric comparison of VMAT standard optimization (SO) and multi‐criteria optimization (MCO) treatment plans with standard mode delivery (STD) or sliding window (SW) for head and neck cancer

Rolland

Favrel

Fau

et al. 2023

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Impact of Immobilization on Interfractional Errors for Upper Extremity Soft Tissue Sarcoma Radiation Therapy

Kim

Kelly

Dickie

et al. 2019

Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Template-based automation of treatment planning in advanced radiotherapy: a comprehensive dosimetric and clinical evaluation

Cilla

Ianiro

Romano

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the recent advanced developments in radiation therapy planning, treatment planning for head-neck and pelvic cancers remains challenging due to large concave target volumes, multiple dose prescriptions and numerous organs at risk close to targets. Inter-institutional studies highlighted that plan quality strongly depends on planner experience and skills. Automated optimization of planning procedure may improve plan quality and best practice. We performed a comprehensive dosimetric and clinical evaluation of the Pinnacle3 AutoPlanning engine, comparing automatically generated plans (AP) with the historically clinically accepted manually-generated ones (MP). Thirty-six patients (12 for each of the following anatomical sites: head-neck, high-risk prostate and endometrial cancer) were re-planned with the AutoPlanning engine. Planning and optimization workflow was developed to automatically generate “dual-arc” VMAT plans with simultaneously integrated boost. Various dose and dose-volume parameters were used to build three metrics able to supply a global Plan Quality Index evaluation in terms of dose conformity indexes, targets coverage and sparing of critical organs. All plans were scored in a blinded clinical evaluation by two senior radiation oncologists. Dose accuracy was validated using the PTW Octavius-4D phantom together with the 1500 2D-array. Autoplanning was able to produce high-quality clinically acceptable plans in all cases. The main benefit of Autoplanning strategy was the improvement of overall treatment quality due to significant increased dose conformity and reduction of integral dose by 6–10%, keeping similar targets coverage. Overall planning time was reduced to 60–80 minutes, about a third of time needed for manual planning. In 94% of clinical evaluations, the AP plans scored equal or better to MP plans. Despite the increased fluence modulation, dose measurements reported an optimal agreement with dose calculations with a γ-pass-rate greater than 95% for 3%(global)-2 mm criteria. Autoplanning engine is an effective device enabling the generation of VMAT high quality treatment plans according to institutional specific planning protocols.

show abstract

Volumetric‐modulated arc therapy using multicriteria optimization for body and extremity sarcoma

Cited by 5 publications

References 19 publications

Dosimetric comparison of VMAT standard optimization (SO) and multi‐criteria optimization (MCO) treatment plans with standard mode delivery (STD) or sliding window (SW) for head and neck cancer

Dosimetric comparison of VMAT standard optimization (SO) and multi‐criteria optimization (MCO) treatment plans with standard mode delivery (STD) or sliding window (SW) for head and neck cancer

Impact of Immobilization on Interfractional Errors for Upper Extremity Soft Tissue Sarcoma Radiation Therapy

Template-based automation of treatment planning in advanced radiotherapy: a comprehensive dosimetric and clinical evaluation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About