Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/18262129
Switch to
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| lifeskim:mentions | |
| pubmed:issue |
1
|
| pubmed:dateCreated |
2008-2-11
|
| pubmed:abstractText |
Direct Machine Parameter Optimization (DMPO) is a leaf segmentation program released as an optional item of the Pinnacle planning system (Philips Radiation Oncology Systems, Milpitas, CA); it is based on the principles of direct aperture optimization where the size, shape, and weight of individual segments are optimized to produce an intensity modulated radiation treatment (IMRT) plan. In this study, we compare DMPO to the traditional method of IMRT planning, in which intensity maps are optimized prior to conversion into deliverable multileaf collimator (MLC) apertures, and we determine if there was any dosimetric improvement, treatment efficiency gain, or planning advantage provided by the use of DMPO. Eleven head-and-neck patients treated with IMRT had treatment plans generated using each optimization method. For each patient, the same planning parameters were used for each optimization method. All calculations were performed using Pinnacle version 7.6c software and treatments were delivered using a step-and-shoot IMRT method on a Varian 2100EX linear accelerator equipped with a 120-leaf Millennium MLC (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). Each plan was assessed based on the calculation time, a conformity index, the composite objective value used in the optimization, the number of segments, monitor units (MUs), and treatment time. The results showed DMPO to be superior to the traditional optimization method in all areas. Considerable advantages were observed in the dosimetric quality of DMPO plans, which also required 32% less time to calculate, 42% fewer MUs, and 35% fewer segments than the conventional optimization method. These reductions translated directly into a 29% decrease in treatment times. While considerable gains were observed in planning and treatment efficiency, they were specific to our institution, and the impact of direct aperture optimization on plan quality and workflow will be dependent on the planning parameters, planning system, and linear accelerators used by a particular institution.
|
| pubmed:language |
eng
|
| pubmed:journal | |
| pubmed:citationSubset |
IM
|
| pubmed:status |
MEDLINE
|
| pubmed:issn |
1873-4022
|
| pubmed:author | |
| pubmed:issnType |
Electronic
|
| pubmed:volume |
33
|
| pubmed:owner |
NLM
|
| pubmed:authorsComplete |
Y
|
| pubmed:pagination |
86-92
|
| pubmed:meshHeading |
pubmed-meshheading:18262129-Algorithms,
pubmed-meshheading:18262129-Computer Simulation,
pubmed-meshheading:18262129-Head and Neck Neoplasms,
pubmed-meshheading:18262129-Humans,
pubmed-meshheading:18262129-Models, Biological,
pubmed-meshheading:18262129-Radiometry,
pubmed-meshheading:18262129-Radiotherapy, Conformal,
pubmed-meshheading:18262129-Radiotherapy Dosage,
pubmed-meshheading:18262129-Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted,
pubmed-meshheading:18262129-Reproducibility of Results,
pubmed-meshheading:18262129-Sensitivity and Specificity
|
| pubmed:year |
2008
|
| pubmed:articleTitle |
Clinical evaluation of direct aperture optimization when applied to head-and-neck IMRT.
|
| pubmed:affiliation |
Department of Radiation Oncology, Illawarra Cancer Care Centre, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. Jonesst@iahs.nsw.gov.au
|
| pubmed:publicationType |
Journal Article
|