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
  • [31] An empirical model of electronic portal imager response implemented within a commercial treatment planning system for verification of intensity-modulated radiation therapy fields
    Khan, Rao F. H.
    Ostapiak, Orest Z.
    Szabo, Joe J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2008, 9 (04): : 135 - 150
  • [32] Dose verification of intensity-modulated arc therapy using an ERGO plus plus treatment planning system and Elekta internal multileaf collimators for prostate cancer treatment
    Yoda, K.
    Nakagawa, K.
    Shiraishi, K.
    Okano, Y.
    Ohtomo, K.
    Pellegrini, R. G.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2009, 82 (976): : 328 - 331
  • [33] Comparison of biological-based and dose volume-based intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans generated using the same treatment planning system
    Senthilkumar, K.
    Das, K. J. Maria
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH AND THERAPEUTICS, 2019, 15 : S33 - S38
  • [34] Dosimetric evaluation of hybrid and volumetric-modulated arc therapy plan for left-sided chest wall irradiation in MONACO treatment planning system
    Sathiyaraj, P.
    Manikandan, P. Senthil
    Varatharaj, C.
    Ganesh, K. M.
    Sathiyan, S.
    Ravikumar, M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH AND THERAPEUTICS, 2022, 18 (06) : 1728 - 1732
  • [35] Accelerated partial-breast intensity-modulated radiotherapy results in improved dose distribution when compared with three-dimensional treatment-planning techniques
    Rusthoven, Kyle E.
    Carter, Dennis L.
    Howell, Kathryn
    Kercher, Janie M.
    Henkenberns, Phyllis
    Hunter, Kari L.
    Leonard, Charles E.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2008, 70 (01): : 296 - 302
  • [36] EVALUATION OF THE PLANNING TARGET VOLUME IN THE TREATMENT OF HEAD AND NECK CANCER WITH INTENSITY-MODULATED RADIOTHERAPY: WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE EXPANSION MARGIN IN THE SETTING OF DAILY IMAGE GUIDANCE?
    Chen, Allen M.
    Farwell, D. Gregory
    Luu, Quang
    Donald, Paul J.
    Perks, Julian
    Purdy, James A.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2011, 81 (04): : 943 - 949
  • [37] Effects of interportal error on dose distribution in patients undergoing breath-holding intensity-modulated radiotherapy for pancreatic cancer: evaluation of a new treatment planning method
    Takakura, Toru
    Nakamura, Mitsuhiro
    Shibuy, Keiko
    Nakata, Manabu
    Nakamura, Akira
    Yukinori, Matsuo
    Shiinoki, Takeshi
    Higashimura, Kyoji
    Teshima, Teruki
    Hiraoka, Masahiro
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2013, 14 (05): : 43 - 51
  • [38] A Treatment Planning and Acute Toxicity Comparison of Two Pelvic Nodal Volume Delineation Techniques and Delivery Comparison of Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Versus Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Hypofractionated High-Risk Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy
    Myrehaug, Sten
    Chan, Gordon
    Craig, Tim
    Weinberg, Vivian
    Cheng, Chun
    Roach, Mack, III
    Cheung, Patrick
    Sahgal, Arjun
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2012, 82 (04): : E657 - E662
  • [39] Technical Note: Treatment planning system (TPS) approximations matter - comparing intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plan quality and robustness between a commercial and an in-house developed TPS for nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC)
    Liu, Chenbin
    Yu, Nathan Y.
    Shan, Jie
    Bhangoo, Ronik S.
    Daniels, Thomas B.
    Chiang, Jennifer S.
    Ding, Xiaoning
    Lara, Pedro
    Patrick, Christopher L.
    Archuleta, James P.
    DeWees, Todd
    Hu, Yanle
    Schild, Steven E.
    Bues, Martin
    Sio, Terence T.
    Liu, Wei
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2019, 46 (11) : 4755 - 4762