Suppr超能文献

光子优化器(PO)与渐进式分辨率优化器(PRO):基于适形性和复杂性的调强弧形治疗计划比较

Photon optimizer (PO) vs progressive resolution optimizer (PRO): a conformality- and complexity-based comparison for intensity-modulated arc therapy plans.

作者信息

Binny Diana, Kairn Tanya, Lancaster Craig M, Trapp Jamie V, Crowe Scott B

机构信息

Radiation Oncology Centres, Redlands, Australia; Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia; Cancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.

Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia; Genesis Cancer Care Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

出版信息

Med Dosim. 2018;43(3):267-275. doi: 10.1016/j.meddos.2017.10.003. Epub 2017 Oct 24.

Abstract

This study aimed to provide guidance on the advantages and limitations of a new optimizer, "photon optimizer" (PO), when compared with its predecessor, "progressive resolution optimizer" (PRO), for intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) plans. Eleven study plans that included a cohort of prostate, head and neck, and brain treatment sites were optimized using both PRO and PO algorithms. A plan template using the same objectives for the same number of iterations was used for each optimized plan to obtain hypothetical treatment plans that would be comparable with a clinical plan. Analysis was performed using plan conformity-based parameters such as target volume coverage factor, conformation number and homogeneity indices, and plan complexity assessment parameters such as small aperture score, modulation indices, and monitor unit variation with arc angle for prostate, brain and head, and neck IMAT treatment plans. Plan conformality analysis demonstrated that conformation numbers, target volume coverage factors, and homogeneity indices produced by the 2 optimizers were comparable for most anatomic sites. IMAT treatment plans produced using the PRO optimizer were found to be less complex than plans produced using the PO optimizer, in terms of multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf position variability and modulation complexity scores. Similarly, the PRO optimizer was shown to produce treatment plans that used fewer monitor units (and generally fewer monitor unit per degree of arc rotation) than PO optimizer. This study demonstrated that the PO optimizer can produce IMAT treatment plans with a similar degree of dose conformity to the target volume and generally improved organ at risk sparing, compared with the PRO optimizer. Better coverage to organs at risk produced by plans optimized using PO was observed to have higher MLC variability and monitor units. Therefore, careful evaluation of treatment plan conformity and complexity before assessing its deliverability is recommended when implementing the routine use of PO optimizer.

摘要

本研究旨在针对一种新型优化器“光子优化器”(PO)与之前的“渐进式分辨率优化器”(PRO)相比,在调强弧形放疗(IMAT)计划中的优势和局限性提供指导。使用PRO和PO算法对11个研究计划进行了优化,这些计划涵盖了前列腺、头颈部和脑部治疗部位。为每个优化计划使用相同目标且迭代次数相同的计划模板,以获得可与临床计划相媲美的假设治疗计划。使用基于计划适形性的参数(如靶区体积覆盖因子、适形数和均匀性指数)以及计划复杂性评估参数(如小孔径得分、调制指数以及前列腺、脑和头颈部IMAT治疗计划中监测单位随弧角的变化)进行分析。计划适形性分析表明,对于大多数解剖部位,两种优化器产生的适形数、靶区体积覆盖因子和均匀性指数相当。就多叶准直器(MLC)叶片位置变异性和调制复杂性得分而言,发现使用PRO优化器生成的IMAT治疗计划比使用PO优化器生成的计划复杂度更低。同样,与PO优化器相比,PRO优化器生成的治疗计划使用的监测单位更少(且通常每弧度旋转的监测单位更少)。本研究表明,与PRO优化器相比,PO优化器可以生成与靶区具有相似剂量适形度且通常能更好地保护危及器官的IMAT治疗计划。观察到使用PO优化的计划对危及器官的更好覆盖具有更高的MLC变异性和监测单位。因此,在常规使用PO优化器时,建议在评估其可交付性之前仔细评估治疗计划的适形性和复杂性。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验