Efficiency of biological versus physical optimization for single-arc VMAT for prostate and head and neck cases

Vadzim Pyshniak, Irina Fotina, Alena Zverava, Stanislau Siamkouski, Elena Zayats, Georgy Kopanitsa, Dzmitry Okuntsau

Результат исследований: Материалы для журналаСтатья

7 Цитирования (Scopus)

Выдержка

The aim of this work was to compare different approaches to VMAT optimization (biological vs. physical DVH-based) in two commercial treatment planning systems (TPS) for head and neck and prostate cases, using Pareto fronts. VMAT vs. IMRT Pareto front comparison was additionally performed in order to benchmark the optimizer efficiency and VMAT plan quality for each TPS. Three prostate and three head and neck cancer patients were selected for nine-beam IMRT and single-arc VMAT planning in Monaco 3.00 and Oncentra MasterPlan (OMP) 3.3 planning systems. Pareto fronts for prostate cases were constructed based on PTV coverage by 95% isodose and volume of rectum receiving 60 Gy or more. For head and neck cases, PTV coverage by the same isodose and mean dose to parotid gland were used for the construction of Pareto fronts. DVH analysis was performed together with evaluation of planning and delivery efficiency for all the plans. In the intersystem comparison for prostate plans, Monaco generated very similar IMRT and VMAT solutions. Quality of Monaco VMAT plans was superior compared to Oncentra in terms of conformity, homogeneity, and lower median dose to bladder due to biological formalism of optimization cost functions. For the head and neck cases, IMRT and VMAT plans were similar in both systems, except the case where a very strong modulation was required. In this situation single-arc VMAT plan generated with OMP was inferior compared to IMRT. VMAT OMP solutions were similar to Monaco or slightly better for two less-modulated head and neck cases. However, this advantage was achieved on the cost of lower conformity and homogeneity of the Oncentra VMAT plans. IMRT and VMAT solutions generated by Monaco were very similar for both prostate and head and neck cases. Oncentra system shows a bigger difference, and use of the dual-arc VMAT would be recommended to achieve the same plan quality as nine-field IMRT. Biological optimization seems beneficial in terms of plan conformity and homogeneity and allowed achieving lower OAR doses for prostate cases. In complex anatomical situations represented by head and neck cases, sequencing algorithm in Monaco imposed limitations on VMAT plan quality in the intersystem comparison.

Язык оригиналаАнглийский
Страницы (с-по)39-53
Число страниц1
ЖурналJournal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
Том15
Номер выпуска4
DOI
СостояниеОпубликовано - 2014

Отпечаток

Monaco
Prostate
Neck
arcs
Head
Planning
optimization
planning
homogeneity
Costs and Cost Analysis
Benchmarking
Cost functions
dosage
Parotid Gland
Head and Neck Neoplasms
Rectum
Modulation
Urinary Bladder
costs
salivary glands

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Цитировать

Efficiency of biological versus physical optimization for single-arc VMAT for prostate and head and neck cases. / Pyshniak, Vadzim; Fotina, Irina; Zverava, Alena; Siamkouski, Stanislau; Zayats, Elena; Kopanitsa, Georgy; Okuntsau, Dzmitry.

В: Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, Том 15, № 4, 2014, стр. 39-53.

Результат исследований: Материалы для журналаСтатья

Pyshniak, Vadzim ; Fotina, Irina ; Zverava, Alena ; Siamkouski, Stanislau ; Zayats, Elena ; Kopanitsa, Georgy ; Okuntsau, Dzmitry. / Efficiency of biological versus physical optimization for single-arc VMAT for prostate and head and neck cases. В: Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics. 2014 ; Том 15, № 4. стр. 39-53.
@article{ee121a759fd5408298262374ec86b08b,
title = "Efficiency of biological versus physical optimization for single-arc VMAT for prostate and head and neck cases",
abstract = "The aim of this work was to compare different approaches to VMAT optimization (biological vs. physical DVH-based) in two commercial treatment planning systems (TPS) for head and neck and prostate cases, using Pareto fronts. VMAT vs. IMRT Pareto front comparison was additionally performed in order to benchmark the optimizer efficiency and VMAT plan quality for each TPS. Three prostate and three head and neck cancer patients were selected for nine-beam IMRT and single-arc VMAT planning in Monaco 3.00 and Oncentra MasterPlan (OMP) 3.3 planning systems. Pareto fronts for prostate cases were constructed based on PTV coverage by 95{\%} isodose and volume of rectum receiving 60 Gy or more. For head and neck cases, PTV coverage by the same isodose and mean dose to parotid gland were used for the construction of Pareto fronts. DVH analysis was performed together with evaluation of planning and delivery efficiency for all the plans. In the intersystem comparison for prostate plans, Monaco generated very similar IMRT and VMAT solutions. Quality of Monaco VMAT plans was superior compared to Oncentra in terms of conformity, homogeneity, and lower median dose to bladder due to biological formalism of optimization cost functions. For the head and neck cases, IMRT and VMAT plans were similar in both systems, except the case where a very strong modulation was required. In this situation single-arc VMAT plan generated with OMP was inferior compared to IMRT. VMAT OMP solutions were similar to Monaco or slightly better for two less-modulated head and neck cases. However, this advantage was achieved on the cost of lower conformity and homogeneity of the Oncentra VMAT plans. IMRT and VMAT solutions generated by Monaco were very similar for both prostate and head and neck cases. Oncentra system shows a bigger difference, and use of the dual-arc VMAT would be recommended to achieve the same plan quality as nine-field IMRT. Biological optimization seems beneficial in terms of plan conformity and homogeneity and allowed achieving lower OAR doses for prostate cases. In complex anatomical situations represented by head and neck cases, sequencing algorithm in Monaco imposed limitations on VMAT plan quality in the intersystem comparison.",
author = "Vadzim Pyshniak and Irina Fotina and Alena Zverava and Stanislau Siamkouski and Elena Zayats and Georgy Kopanitsa and Dzmitry Okuntsau",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1120/jacmp.v15i4.4514",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "39--53",
journal = "Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics",
issn = "1526-9914",
publisher = "American Institute of Physics Publising LLC",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Efficiency of biological versus physical optimization for single-arc VMAT for prostate and head and neck cases

AU - Pyshniak, Vadzim

AU - Fotina, Irina

AU - Zverava, Alena

AU - Siamkouski, Stanislau

AU - Zayats, Elena

AU - Kopanitsa, Georgy

AU - Okuntsau, Dzmitry

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - The aim of this work was to compare different approaches to VMAT optimization (biological vs. physical DVH-based) in two commercial treatment planning systems (TPS) for head and neck and prostate cases, using Pareto fronts. VMAT vs. IMRT Pareto front comparison was additionally performed in order to benchmark the optimizer efficiency and VMAT plan quality for each TPS. Three prostate and three head and neck cancer patients were selected for nine-beam IMRT and single-arc VMAT planning in Monaco 3.00 and Oncentra MasterPlan (OMP) 3.3 planning systems. Pareto fronts for prostate cases were constructed based on PTV coverage by 95% isodose and volume of rectum receiving 60 Gy or more. For head and neck cases, PTV coverage by the same isodose and mean dose to parotid gland were used for the construction of Pareto fronts. DVH analysis was performed together with evaluation of planning and delivery efficiency for all the plans. In the intersystem comparison for prostate plans, Monaco generated very similar IMRT and VMAT solutions. Quality of Monaco VMAT plans was superior compared to Oncentra in terms of conformity, homogeneity, and lower median dose to bladder due to biological formalism of optimization cost functions. For the head and neck cases, IMRT and VMAT plans were similar in both systems, except the case where a very strong modulation was required. In this situation single-arc VMAT plan generated with OMP was inferior compared to IMRT. VMAT OMP solutions were similar to Monaco or slightly better for two less-modulated head and neck cases. However, this advantage was achieved on the cost of lower conformity and homogeneity of the Oncentra VMAT plans. IMRT and VMAT solutions generated by Monaco were very similar for both prostate and head and neck cases. Oncentra system shows a bigger difference, and use of the dual-arc VMAT would be recommended to achieve the same plan quality as nine-field IMRT. Biological optimization seems beneficial in terms of plan conformity and homogeneity and allowed achieving lower OAR doses for prostate cases. In complex anatomical situations represented by head and neck cases, sequencing algorithm in Monaco imposed limitations on VMAT plan quality in the intersystem comparison.

AB - The aim of this work was to compare different approaches to VMAT optimization (biological vs. physical DVH-based) in two commercial treatment planning systems (TPS) for head and neck and prostate cases, using Pareto fronts. VMAT vs. IMRT Pareto front comparison was additionally performed in order to benchmark the optimizer efficiency and VMAT plan quality for each TPS. Three prostate and three head and neck cancer patients were selected for nine-beam IMRT and single-arc VMAT planning in Monaco 3.00 and Oncentra MasterPlan (OMP) 3.3 planning systems. Pareto fronts for prostate cases were constructed based on PTV coverage by 95% isodose and volume of rectum receiving 60 Gy or more. For head and neck cases, PTV coverage by the same isodose and mean dose to parotid gland were used for the construction of Pareto fronts. DVH analysis was performed together with evaluation of planning and delivery efficiency for all the plans. In the intersystem comparison for prostate plans, Monaco generated very similar IMRT and VMAT solutions. Quality of Monaco VMAT plans was superior compared to Oncentra in terms of conformity, homogeneity, and lower median dose to bladder due to biological formalism of optimization cost functions. For the head and neck cases, IMRT and VMAT plans were similar in both systems, except the case where a very strong modulation was required. In this situation single-arc VMAT plan generated with OMP was inferior compared to IMRT. VMAT OMP solutions were similar to Monaco or slightly better for two less-modulated head and neck cases. However, this advantage was achieved on the cost of lower conformity and homogeneity of the Oncentra VMAT plans. IMRT and VMAT solutions generated by Monaco were very similar for both prostate and head and neck cases. Oncentra system shows a bigger difference, and use of the dual-arc VMAT would be recommended to achieve the same plan quality as nine-field IMRT. Biological optimization seems beneficial in terms of plan conformity and homogeneity and allowed achieving lower OAR doses for prostate cases. In complex anatomical situations represented by head and neck cases, sequencing algorithm in Monaco imposed limitations on VMAT plan quality in the intersystem comparison.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84937965661&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84937965661&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1120/jacmp.v15i4.4514

DO - 10.1120/jacmp.v15i4.4514

M3 - Article

C2 - 25207394

AN - SCOPUS:84937965661

VL - 15

SP - 39

EP - 53

JO - Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics

JF - Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics

SN - 1526-9914

IS - 4

ER -