Plan quality and treatment efficiency assurance of two VMAT optimization for cervical cancer radiotherapy.
cervical cancer
delivery time
fluence map optimization (FMO)
gamma pass rate (GPR)
modulation complexity score (MCS)
plan difference
stochastic platform optimization (SPO)
Journal
Journal of applied clinical medical physics
ISSN: 1526-9914
Titre abrégé: J Appl Clin Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101089176
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2023
Oct 2023
Historique:
revised:
21
03
2023
received:
16
01
2023
accepted:
11
05
2023
medline:
23
10
2023
pubmed:
30
5
2023
entrez:
30
5
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To investigate the difference of the fluence map optimization (FMO) and Stochastic platform optimization (SPO) algorithm in a newly-introduced treatment planning system (TPS). 34 cervical cancer patients with definitive radiation were retrospectively analyzed. Each patient has four plans: FMO with fixed jaw plans (FMO-FJ) and no fixed jaw plans (FMO-NFJ); SPO with fixed jaw plans (SPO-FJ) and no fixed jaw plans (SPO-NFJ). Dosimetric parameters, Modulation Complexity Score (MCS), Gamma Pass Rate (GPR) and delivery time were analyzed among the four plans. For target coverage, SPO-FJ plans are the best ones (P ≤ 0.00). FMO plans are better than SPO-NFJ plans (P ≤ 0.00). For OARs sparing, SPO-FJ plans are better than FMO plans for mostly OARs (P ≤ 0.04). Additionally, SPO-FJ plans are better than SPO-NFJ plans (P ≤ 0.02), except for rectum V45Gy. Compared to SPO-NFJ plans, the FMO plans delivered less dose to bladder, rectum, colon V40Gy and pelvic bone V40Gy (P ≤ 0.04). Meanwhile, the SPO-NFJ plans showed superiority in MU, delivery time, MCS and GPR in all plans. In terms of delivery time and MCS, the SPO-FJ plans are better than FMO plans. FMO-FJ plans are better than FMO-NFJ plans in delivery efficiency. MCSs are strongly correlated with PCTV length, which are negatively with PCTV length (P ≤ 0.03). The delivery time and MUs of the four plans are strongly correlated (P ≤ 0.02). Comparing plans with fixed or no fixed jaw in two algorithms, no difference was found in FMO plans in target coverage and minor difference in Kidney_L Dmean, Mu and delivery time between PCTV width≤15.5 cm group and >15.5 cm group. For SPO plans, SPO-FJ plans showed more superiority in target coverage and OARs sparing than the SPO-NFJ plans in the two groups. SPO-FJ plans showed superiority in target coverage and OARs sparing, as well as higher delivery efficiency in the four plans.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37248800
doi: 10.1002/acm2.14050
pmc: PMC10562038
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e14050Subventions
Organisme : Youth Innovation Project of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center
ID : QNYCPY32
Organisme : Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation of Guangdong Province
ID : 2021A1515220140
Organisme : Student's Platform for Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program
ID : S202113902030
Organisme : Student's Platform for Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program
ID : 202213902102
Organisme : Student's Platform for Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program
ID : S202213902029
Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Radiol Oncol. 2021 Nov 19;55(4):508-515
pubmed: 34821138
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018 Sep;19(5):609-615
pubmed: 30058257
PLoS One. 2018 May 23;13(5):e0197926
pubmed: 29791505
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Feb 1;70(2):609-18
pubmed: 17996389
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2023 Oct;24(10):e14050
pubmed: 37248800
Br J Radiol. 2014 Jul;87(1039):20140183
pubmed: 24834477
Front Oncol. 2019 Aug 16;9:760
pubmed: 31475110
Med Phys. 2011 Apr;38(4):2027-34
pubmed: 21626935
Med Phys. 2017 Oct;44(10):e391-e429
pubmed: 28688159
Med Phys. 2009 Nov;36(11):5128-38
pubmed: 19994523
J Med Phys. 2017 Oct-Dec;42(4):199-205
pubmed: 29296033
Radiat Oncol. 2021 Aug 19;16(1):158
pubmed: 34412656
Strahlenther Onkol. 2018 Jul;194(7):664-674
pubmed: 29523907
Med Dosim. 2021 Summer;46(2):188-194
pubmed: 33353791
Med Phys. 2010 Feb;37(2):505-15
pubmed: 20229859
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2021 Oct;22(10):178-189
pubmed: 34505397
In Vivo. 2020 Nov-Dec;34(6):3611-3618
pubmed: 33144475
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018 Jul;19(4):155-162
pubmed: 29781138
Med Phys. 2013 Oct;40(10):101712
pubmed: 24089902
Oncol Lett. 2017 May;13(5):2971-2974
pubmed: 28521403
BMC Cancer. 2021 Mar 10;21(1):261
pubmed: 33691654
Phys Med Biol. 2011 Mar 7;56(5):R31-54
pubmed: 21297245
Radiother Oncol. 2020 Dec;153:26-33
pubmed: 32987045
Strahlenther Onkol. 2012 Jan;188(1):97-9
pubmed: 22234506
Phys Med. 2020 Feb;70:75-84
pubmed: 31982790
Med Phys. 2022 Sep;49(9):5742-5751
pubmed: 35866442
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019 Sep;20(9):31-41
pubmed: 31483573
Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2018 Feb 22;5:37-43
pubmed: 33458367