Evaluation of the Minimum Segment Width and Fluence Smoothing Tools for Intensity-modulated Techniques in Monaco Treatment Planning System

被引:0
|
作者
Jimenez-Puertas, Sara [1 ]
Rodriguez, Andrea Gonzalez [1 ]
Cordero, Sergio Lozares [1 ]
Gonzalez, Tomas Gonzalez [1 ]
Chamarro, Javier Diez [1 ]
Hernandez, Monica Hernandez [1 ]
Moreno, Raquel Castro [1 ]
Casi, Marta Sanchez [1 ]
Gazulla, David Carlos Villa [1 ]
Martinez, Almudena Gandia [1 ]
Bonel, Arantxa Campos [1 ]
Valino, Maria del Mar Puertas [1 ]
Gomez, Jose Antonio Font [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hosp Miguel Servet, Dept Med Phys & Radiat Protect, P Isabel Catolica 1-3, Zaragoza 50009, Spain
关键词
Minimum segment width; monitor units; radiosurgery; volumetric-modulated arc therapy; RADIATION-THERAPY; RADIOTHERAPY; ARC; QUALITY;
D O I
10.4103/jmp.jmp_156_23
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose: This study aims to minimize monitor units (MUs) of intensity-modulated treatments in the Monaco treatment planning system while preserving plan quality by optimizing the "Minimum Segment Width" (MSW) and "Fluence Smoothing" parameters. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 30 prostate, 30 gynecological, 15 breast cancer, 10 head and neck tumor, 11 radiosurgery, and 10 hypo-fractionated plans. Original prostate plans employed "Fluence Smoothing" = Off and were reoptimized with Low, Medium, and High settings. The remaining pathologies initially used MSW = 0.5 cm and were reoptimized with MSW = 1.0 cm. Plan quality, including total MU, delivery time, and dosimetric constraints, was statistically analyzed with a paired t-test. Results: Prostate plans exhibited the highest MU variation when changing "Fluence Smoothing" from Off to High (average Delta MU = -5.1%; P < 0.001). However, a High setting may increase overall MU when MSW = 0.5 cm. Gynecological plans changed substantially when MSW increased from 0.5 cm to 1.0 cm (average Delta MU = -29%; P < 0.001). Organs at risk sparing and planning target volumes remained within 1.2% differences. Replanning other pathologies with MSW = 1.0 cm affected breast and head and neck tumor plans (average Delta MU = -168.38, average Delta t = -11.74 s, and average Delta MU = -256.56, average Delta t = -15.05 s, respectively; all with P < 0.004). Radiosurgery and hypofractioned highly modulated plans did not yield statistically significant results. Conclusions: In breast, pelvis, head and neck, and prostate plans, starting with MSW = 1.0 cm optimally reduces MU and treatment time without compromising plan quality. MSW has a greater impact on MU than the "Fluence Smoothing" parameter. Plans with high modulation might present divergent behavior, requiring a case-specific analysis with MSW values higher than 0.5 cm.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 39 条
  • [1] Effect of fluence smoothing on the quality of intensity-modulated radiation treatment plans
    Niyas P.
    Abdullah K.K.
    Noufal M.P.
    Sankaran Nair T.
    [J]. Radiological Physics and Technology, 2016, 9 (2) : 202 - 213
  • [2] Evaluation of An Automated Treatment Planning Verification System for Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Treatment Planning
    Xiao, L.
    Yin, Y.
    Tong, L. Xiu
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2017, 44 (06) : 2897 - 2897
  • [3] Optimization of Minimum Segment Width Parameter in the Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Plan for Esophageal Cancer
    Hong, Jun
    Han, Ji-Hua
    Luo, Hong-Lei
    Song, Ya-Qi
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GENERAL MEDICINE, 2021, 14 : 9913 - 9921
  • [4] Does fluence smoothing reduce the complexity of the intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment plan? A dosimetric analysis
    Saroj, Dinesh Kumar
    Yadav, Suresh
    Paliwal, Neetu
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2022, 47 (04) : 336 - 343
  • [5] An Exact Method for the Minimum Cardinality Problem in the Treatment Planning of Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy
    Ernst, Andreas T.
    Mak, Vicky H.
    Mason, Luke R.
    [J]. INFORMS JOURNAL ON COMPUTING, 2009, 21 (04) : 562 - 574
  • [6] Comparative planning evaluation of intensity-modulated radiotherapy techniques for complex lung cancer cases
    Yartsev, S
    Chen, J
    Yu, E
    Kron, T
    Rodrigues, G
    Coad, T
    Trenka, K
    Wong, E
    Bauman, G
    Van Dyk, J
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2006, 78 (02) : 169 - 176
  • [7] Evaluation of a novel secondary check tool for intensity-modulated radiotherapy treatment planning
    Fontenot, Jonas D.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2014, 15 (05): : 207 - 215
  • [8] Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy Planning at Mediastinal Lymphoma Treatment: Sandglass, Rainbow and Butterfly Techniques
    Yucel, Serap
    Gural, Zeynep
    Agaoglu, Fulya
    [J]. TURK ONKOLOJI DERGISI-TURKISH JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY, 2022, 37 (01): : 37 - 40
  • [9] A Two-Stage Programming Approach to Fluence Map Optimization for Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning
    Rocha, Humberto
    Dias, Joana M.
    Ferreira, Brigida C.
    Lopes, Maria Do Carmo
    [J]. 6TH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION FOR MEDICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, 2015, 45 : 687 - 690
  • [10] Development of a novel treatment planning test for credentialing rotational intensity-modulated radiotherapy techniques in the UK
    Tsang, Y.
    Ciurlionis, L.
    Clark, C.
    Venables, K.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2013, 86 (1022):