SU‐EE‐A1‐01

Dosimetric Comparisons of DMPO and Two‐Step Approach Step‐And‐Shoot IMRT Plans

Z. su, Nesrin Dogan, Y. wu, S. Stojadinovic

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To systematically evaluate step‐and‐shoot Intensity‐Modulated‐Radiation‐Therapy (IMRT) plans generated by Direct‐Machine‐Parameter‐Optimization (DMPO) and by Two‐Step‐Approach (TSA) using identical optimization parameters in Pinnacle 3 treatment planning system. Method and Materials: Using Pinnacle 3 version7.6c, TSA plans of total eight patients with Head‐and‐Neck, Prostate and Lung cancers were generated using identical optimization parameters from clinical plans used DMPO. The dose of planned‐target‐volume (PTV) in TSA plan was scaled to closely match at prescribed dose volume in the DMPO plan. Three PTV dosimetric indices: dose‐coverage, dose‐conformity and dose‐inhomogeneity, were generated for each plan. Dosimetric comparisons were performed for organ‐at‐risk (OAR) with both “maximum‐dose‐objectives” and “dose‐volume‐based‐objectives”. Final dose recalculation using EGS4‐based in‐house Monte‐Carlo program for each plan was performed and corresponding dosimetric data were obtained. Film‐based IMRT QA was performed for three patients. Results: On average, total monitor‐units (MUs) are about 25% higher of TSA than DMPO. The averaged segment‐numbers and PTV dosimetric indices are almost identical between plans from DMPO and TSA. The maximum‐dose (defined at 0.1cc) of Head‐and‐Neck and Lung OARs with “maximum‐dose‐objectives” of TSA are, on average, ∼2.5Gy and ∼0.9Gy lower than those of DMPO, respectively. The averaged dose difference in prostate OARs with “maximum‐dose‐objectives” is small. For OARs with “dose‐volume‐based‐objectives”, there is little difference between TSA and DMPO for all sites. The Monte‐Carlo dose recalculations showed similar trends. The agreement between Pinnacle3 calculations and film measurements is 99% for all fields using 3%–3mm criteria. Conclusion: Dosimetric comparisons between DMPO and TSA IMRT plans demonstrated that using identical optimization parameters, DMPO plans have less total MUs and similar averaged segment‐number as well as almost identical PTV dosimetric index values as TSA plans. For Head‐and‐Neck and lung plans, TSA has noticeable better sparing of OARs with “maximum‐dose‐based‐objectives”, which is confirmed by Monte‐Carlo recalculations. Film QA demonstrated both TSA and DMPO plans are very accurate.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume34
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Lung
Prostate
Lung Neoplasms
Prostatic Neoplasms
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐EE‐A1‐01 : Dosimetric Comparisons of DMPO and Two‐Step Approach Step‐And‐Shoot IMRT Plans. / su, Z.; Dogan, Nesrin; wu, Y.; Stojadinovic, S.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 34, No. 6, 2007.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{690503288fc742ba9125bb4216329dce,
title = "SU‐EE‐A1‐01: Dosimetric Comparisons of DMPO and Two‐Step Approach Step‐And‐Shoot IMRT Plans",
abstract = "Purpose: To systematically evaluate step‐and‐shoot Intensity‐Modulated‐Radiation‐Therapy (IMRT) plans generated by Direct‐Machine‐Parameter‐Optimization (DMPO) and by Two‐Step‐Approach (TSA) using identical optimization parameters in Pinnacle 3 treatment planning system. Method and Materials: Using Pinnacle 3 version7.6c, TSA plans of total eight patients with Head‐and‐Neck, Prostate and Lung cancers were generated using identical optimization parameters from clinical plans used DMPO. The dose of planned‐target‐volume (PTV) in TSA plan was scaled to closely match at prescribed dose volume in the DMPO plan. Three PTV dosimetric indices: dose‐coverage, dose‐conformity and dose‐inhomogeneity, were generated for each plan. Dosimetric comparisons were performed for organ‐at‐risk (OAR) with both “maximum‐dose‐objectives” and “dose‐volume‐based‐objectives”. Final dose recalculation using EGS4‐based in‐house Monte‐Carlo program for each plan was performed and corresponding dosimetric data were obtained. Film‐based IMRT QA was performed for three patients. Results: On average, total monitor‐units (MUs) are about 25{\%} higher of TSA than DMPO. The averaged segment‐numbers and PTV dosimetric indices are almost identical between plans from DMPO and TSA. The maximum‐dose (defined at 0.1cc) of Head‐and‐Neck and Lung OARs with “maximum‐dose‐objectives” of TSA are, on average, ∼2.5Gy and ∼0.9Gy lower than those of DMPO, respectively. The averaged dose difference in prostate OARs with “maximum‐dose‐objectives” is small. For OARs with “dose‐volume‐based‐objectives”, there is little difference between TSA and DMPO for all sites. The Monte‐Carlo dose recalculations showed similar trends. The agreement between Pinnacle3 calculations and film measurements is 99{\%} for all fields using 3{\%}–3mm criteria. Conclusion: Dosimetric comparisons between DMPO and TSA IMRT plans demonstrated that using identical optimization parameters, DMPO plans have less total MUs and similar averaged segment‐number as well as almost identical PTV dosimetric index values as TSA plans. For Head‐and‐Neck and lung plans, TSA has noticeable better sparing of OARs with “maximum‐dose‐based‐objectives”, which is confirmed by Monte‐Carlo recalculations. Film QA demonstrated both TSA and DMPO plans are very accurate.",
author = "Z. su and Nesrin Dogan and Y. wu and S. Stojadinovic",
year = "2007",
doi = "10.1118/1.2760364",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "34",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐EE‐A1‐01

T2 - Dosimetric Comparisons of DMPO and Two‐Step Approach Step‐And‐Shoot IMRT Plans

AU - su, Z.

AU - Dogan, Nesrin

AU - wu, Y.

AU - Stojadinovic, S.

PY - 2007

Y1 - 2007

N2 - Purpose: To systematically evaluate step‐and‐shoot Intensity‐Modulated‐Radiation‐Therapy (IMRT) plans generated by Direct‐Machine‐Parameter‐Optimization (DMPO) and by Two‐Step‐Approach (TSA) using identical optimization parameters in Pinnacle 3 treatment planning system. Method and Materials: Using Pinnacle 3 version7.6c, TSA plans of total eight patients with Head‐and‐Neck, Prostate and Lung cancers were generated using identical optimization parameters from clinical plans used DMPO. The dose of planned‐target‐volume (PTV) in TSA plan was scaled to closely match at prescribed dose volume in the DMPO plan. Three PTV dosimetric indices: dose‐coverage, dose‐conformity and dose‐inhomogeneity, were generated for each plan. Dosimetric comparisons were performed for organ‐at‐risk (OAR) with both “maximum‐dose‐objectives” and “dose‐volume‐based‐objectives”. Final dose recalculation using EGS4‐based in‐house Monte‐Carlo program for each plan was performed and corresponding dosimetric data were obtained. Film‐based IMRT QA was performed for three patients. Results: On average, total monitor‐units (MUs) are about 25% higher of TSA than DMPO. The averaged segment‐numbers and PTV dosimetric indices are almost identical between plans from DMPO and TSA. The maximum‐dose (defined at 0.1cc) of Head‐and‐Neck and Lung OARs with “maximum‐dose‐objectives” of TSA are, on average, ∼2.5Gy and ∼0.9Gy lower than those of DMPO, respectively. The averaged dose difference in prostate OARs with “maximum‐dose‐objectives” is small. For OARs with “dose‐volume‐based‐objectives”, there is little difference between TSA and DMPO for all sites. The Monte‐Carlo dose recalculations showed similar trends. The agreement between Pinnacle3 calculations and film measurements is 99% for all fields using 3%–3mm criteria. Conclusion: Dosimetric comparisons between DMPO and TSA IMRT plans demonstrated that using identical optimization parameters, DMPO plans have less total MUs and similar averaged segment‐number as well as almost identical PTV dosimetric index values as TSA plans. For Head‐and‐Neck and lung plans, TSA has noticeable better sparing of OARs with “maximum‐dose‐based‐objectives”, which is confirmed by Monte‐Carlo recalculations. Film QA demonstrated both TSA and DMPO plans are very accurate.

AB - Purpose: To systematically evaluate step‐and‐shoot Intensity‐Modulated‐Radiation‐Therapy (IMRT) plans generated by Direct‐Machine‐Parameter‐Optimization (DMPO) and by Two‐Step‐Approach (TSA) using identical optimization parameters in Pinnacle 3 treatment planning system. Method and Materials: Using Pinnacle 3 version7.6c, TSA plans of total eight patients with Head‐and‐Neck, Prostate and Lung cancers were generated using identical optimization parameters from clinical plans used DMPO. The dose of planned‐target‐volume (PTV) in TSA plan was scaled to closely match at prescribed dose volume in the DMPO plan. Three PTV dosimetric indices: dose‐coverage, dose‐conformity and dose‐inhomogeneity, were generated for each plan. Dosimetric comparisons were performed for organ‐at‐risk (OAR) with both “maximum‐dose‐objectives” and “dose‐volume‐based‐objectives”. Final dose recalculation using EGS4‐based in‐house Monte‐Carlo program for each plan was performed and corresponding dosimetric data were obtained. Film‐based IMRT QA was performed for three patients. Results: On average, total monitor‐units (MUs) are about 25% higher of TSA than DMPO. The averaged segment‐numbers and PTV dosimetric indices are almost identical between plans from DMPO and TSA. The maximum‐dose (defined at 0.1cc) of Head‐and‐Neck and Lung OARs with “maximum‐dose‐objectives” of TSA are, on average, ∼2.5Gy and ∼0.9Gy lower than those of DMPO, respectively. The averaged dose difference in prostate OARs with “maximum‐dose‐objectives” is small. For OARs with “dose‐volume‐based‐objectives”, there is little difference between TSA and DMPO for all sites. The Monte‐Carlo dose recalculations showed similar trends. The agreement between Pinnacle3 calculations and film measurements is 99% for all fields using 3%–3mm criteria. Conclusion: Dosimetric comparisons between DMPO and TSA IMRT plans demonstrated that using identical optimization parameters, DMPO plans have less total MUs and similar averaged segment‐number as well as almost identical PTV dosimetric index values as TSA plans. For Head‐and‐Neck and lung plans, TSA has noticeable better sparing of OARs with “maximum‐dose‐based‐objectives”, which is confirmed by Monte‐Carlo recalculations. Film QA demonstrated both TSA and DMPO plans are very accurate.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024787255&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024787255&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.2760364

DO - 10.1118/1.2760364

M3 - Article

VL - 34

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -