Journal of medical physics · 2024
Evaluation of the Minimum Segment Width and Fluence Smoothing Tools for Intensity-modulated Techniques in Monaco Treatment Planning System.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Jiménez-Puertas Sara, Rodríguez Andrea González, Cordero Sergio Lozares, González Tomás González, Chamarro Javier Díez, Hernández Mónica Hernández, Moreno Raquel Castro, Casi Marta Sánchez, Gazulla David Carlos Villa, Martínez Almudena Gandía, Bonel Arantxa Campos, Valiño Maria Del Mar Puertas, Gómez José Antonio Font
Аннотация
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 ΔMU = -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 ΔMU = -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 ΔMU = -168.38, average Δt = -11.74 s, and average ΔMU = -256.56, average Δt = -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.
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 ΔMU = -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 ΔMU = -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 ΔMU = -168.38, average Δt = -11.74 s, and average ΔMU = -256.56, average Δt = -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.