Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics (AIFB) · 2019
Comparison of two beam angular optimization algorithms guided by automated multicriterial IMRT.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ventura Tiago, Rocha Humberto, da Costa Ferreira Brigida, Dias Joana, Lopes Maria do Carmo
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare two beam angle optimization (BAO) algorithms for coplanar and non-coplanar geometries in a multicriterial optimization framework.
METHODS: 40 nasopharynx patients were selected for this retrospective planning study. IMRT optimized plans were produced by Erasmus-iCycle multicriterial optimization platform. Two different algorithms, based on a discrete and on a continuous exploration of the space search, algorithm i and B respectively, were used to address BAO. Plan quality evaluation and comparison were performed with SPIDERplan. Statistically significant differences between the plans were also assessed.
RESULTS: For plans using only coplanar incidences, the optimized beam distribution with algorithm i is more asymmetric than with algorithm B. For non-coplanar beam optimization, larger deviations from coplanarity were obtained with algorithm i than with algorithm B. Globally, both algorithms presented near equivalent plan quality scores, with algorithm B presenting a marginally better performance than algorithm i.
CONCLUSION: Almost all plans presented high quality, profiting from multicriterial and beam angular optimization. Although there were not significant differences when average results over the entire sample were considered, a case-by-case analysis revealed important differences for some patients.
METHODS: 40 nasopharynx patients were selected for this retrospective planning study. IMRT optimized plans were produced by Erasmus-iCycle multicriterial optimization platform. Two different algorithms, based on a discrete and on a continuous exploration of the space search, algorithm i and B respectively, were used to address BAO. Plan quality evaluation and comparison were performed with SPIDERplan. Statistically significant differences between the plans were also assessed.
RESULTS: For plans using only coplanar incidences, the optimized beam distribution with algorithm i is more asymmetric than with algorithm B. For non-coplanar beam optimization, larger deviations from coplanarity were obtained with algorithm i than with algorithm B. Globally, both algorithms presented near equivalent plan quality scores, with algorithm B presenting a marginally better performance than algorithm i.
CONCLUSION: Almost all plans presented high quality, profiting from multicriterial and beam angular optimization. Although there were not significant differences when average results over the entire sample were considered, a case-by-case analysis revealed important differences for some patients.