Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013 May 6;14(3):4056. doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v14i3.4056.
In step-and-shoot IMRT plans, aperture-based optimization (or one-step optimization) has been considered as a means of improving monitor unit (MU) efficiency compared to fluence-based optimization (or two-step optimization). However, the extent of improvement on MU efficiency varies, depending on the implementation and design of one-step optimization. In this paper, we attempted to investigate MU efficiency issue in two methods of one-step optimization implemented in two commercial treatment planning systems (TPSs). Five patients with nasopharyngeal cancer and five patients with advanced prostate cancer were selected for this study. For these patients, clinically used IMRT plans were generated using the Direct Machine Parameter Optimization (DMPO) in the Pinnacle TPS. New IMRT plans were created using the Direct Aperture Optimization (DAO) method in the Panther TPS. For the purpose of this study, we used the similar planning dose objectives and beam configurations with a similar total number of segments in each pair of DMPO and DAO plans. With similar plan quality, DMPO plans required more MUs than DAO plans. The average number of MUs (expressed in mean ± 1 SD) for the DMPO and DAO plans was 1,169 ± 186 and 671 ± 135 for the nasopharynx cases, and 711 ± 48 and 400 ± 65 for the prostate cases, respectively. The average segment areas (expressed in mean ± 1 SD) for the DMPO plans were smaller than those for the DAO plans: 46.0 ± 7.6 cm2 vs. 100.9 ± 32.3 cm2 for the nasopharynx cases, and 58.3 ± 17.2 cm2 vs. 97.4 ± 35.0 cm2 for the prostate cases, respectively. In conclusion, two one-step optimization algorithms, DMPO and DAO, resulted in much different MU efficiency with the similar number of segments and optimization parameters. This MU difference is largely attributed to the fact that large area segments are used more often in DAO plans than in DMPO plans.
在步进式调强放射治疗计划中,基于孔径的优化(一步优化)被认为是一种提高监视器单位(MU)效率的方法,与基于通量的优化(两步优化)相比。然而,MU 效率的提高程度因一步优化的实施和设计而异。在本文中,我们试图研究两种商业治疗计划系统(TPS)中实施的一步优化方法的 MU 效率问题。选择了五例鼻咽癌患者和五例晚期前列腺癌患者进行这项研究。对于这些患者,使用 Pinnacle TPS 中的直接机器参数优化(DMPO)生成了临床使用的调强放射治疗计划。使用 Panther TPS 中的直接孔径优化(DAO)方法创建了新的调强放射治疗计划。为了进行这项研究,我们使用了类似的计划剂量目标和光束配置,每一对 DMPO 和 DAO 计划的总段数也相似。在具有相似计划质量的情况下,DMPO 计划所需的 MU 比 DAO 计划多。DMPO 和 DAO 计划的 MU 平均值(以平均值±1SD 表示)分别为鼻咽病例的 1169±186 和 671±135,前列腺病例的 711±48 和 400±65。DMPO 计划的平均段面积(以平均值±1SD 表示)小于 DAO 计划:鼻咽病例分别为 46.0±7.6cm2 和 100.9±32.3cm2,前列腺病例分别为 58.3±17.2cm2 和 97.4±35.0cm2。总之,两种一步优化算法,DMPO 和 DAO,在具有相似段数和优化参数的情况下,导致了MU 效率的显著差异。这种 MU 差异主要归因于在 DAO 计划中,与 DMPO 计划相比,大的面积段使用得更频繁。