Journal of cancer research and therapeutics · 2023
An uncertainty-incorporated method for fast beam angle selection in intensity-modulated proton therapy.
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.
Ramar Natarajan, Meher Samir Ranjan
Аннотация
AIM: We propose a novel metric called ψ - score to rank the Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) beams in the order of their optimality and robustness. The beams ranked based on this metric were accordingly chosen for IMPT optimization. The objective of this work is to study the effectiveness of the proposed method in various clinical cases.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: We have used Pinnacle TPS (Philips Medical System V 16.2) for performing the optimization. To validate our approach, we have applied it in four clinical cases: Lung, Pancreas, Prostate+Node and Prostate. Basically, for all clinical cases, four set of plans were created using Multi field optimization (MFO) and Robust Optimization (RO) with same clinical objectives, namely (1) Conventional angle plan without Robust Optimization (CA Plan), (2) Suitable angle Plan without Robust Optimization (SA Plan), (3) Conventional angle plan with Robust Optimization (CA-RO Plan), (4) Suitable angle Plan with Robust Optimization (SA-RO Plan). Initial plan was generated with 20 equiangular beams starting from the gantry angle of 0°. In the corresponding SA Plan and SA-RO Plan, the beam angles were obtained using the guidance provided by ψ - score.
RESULTS: All CA plans were compared against the SA plans in terms of Dose distribution, Dose volume histogram (DVH) and percentage of dose difference. The results obtained from the clinical cases indicate that the plan quality is considerably improved without significantly compromising the robustness when the beam angles are optimized using the proposed method. It takes approximately 10-15 min to find the suitable beam angles without Robust Optimization (RO), while it takes approximately 20-30 min to find the suitable beam angles with RO. However, the inclusion of RO in BAO did not result in a change in the final beam angles for anatomies other than lung.
CONCLUSION: The results obtained in different anatomic sites demonstrate the usefulness of our approach in improving the plan quality by determining optimal beam angles in IMPT.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: We have used Pinnacle TPS (Philips Medical System V 16.2) for performing the optimization. To validate our approach, we have applied it in four clinical cases: Lung, Pancreas, Prostate+Node and Prostate. Basically, for all clinical cases, four set of plans were created using Multi field optimization (MFO) and Robust Optimization (RO) with same clinical objectives, namely (1) Conventional angle plan without Robust Optimization (CA Plan), (2) Suitable angle Plan without Robust Optimization (SA Plan), (3) Conventional angle plan with Robust Optimization (CA-RO Plan), (4) Suitable angle Plan with Robust Optimization (SA-RO Plan). Initial plan was generated with 20 equiangular beams starting from the gantry angle of 0°. In the corresponding SA Plan and SA-RO Plan, the beam angles were obtained using the guidance provided by ψ - score.
RESULTS: All CA plans were compared against the SA plans in terms of Dose distribution, Dose volume histogram (DVH) and percentage of dose difference. The results obtained from the clinical cases indicate that the plan quality is considerably improved without significantly compromising the robustness when the beam angles are optimized using the proposed method. It takes approximately 10-15 min to find the suitable beam angles without Robust Optimization (RO), while it takes approximately 20-30 min to find the suitable beam angles with RO. However, the inclusion of RO in BAO did not result in a change in the final beam angles for anatomies other than lung.
CONCLUSION: The results obtained in different anatomic sites demonstrate the usefulness of our approach in improving the plan quality by determining optimal beam angles in IMPT.