首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics >Relationship of segment area and monitor unit efficiency in aperture‐based IMRT optimization
【2h】

Relationship of segment area and monitor unit efficiency in aperture‐based IMRT optimization

机译:基于孔径的IMRT优化中段面积与监控器效率的关系

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

In step‐and‐shoot IMRT plans, aperture‐based optimization (or one‐step optimization) has been considered as a means of improving monitor unit (MU) efficiency compared to fluence‐based optimization (or two‐step optimization). However, the extent of improvement on MU efficiency varies, depending on the implementation and design of one‐step optimization. In this paper, we attempted to investigate MU efficiency issue in two methods of one‐step optimization implemented in two commercial treatment planning systems (TPSs). Five patients with nasopharyngeal cancer and five patients with advanced prostate cancer were selected for this study. For these patients, clinically used IMRT plans were generated using the Direct Machine Parameter Optimization (DMPO) in the Pinnacle TPS. New IMRT plans were created using the Direct Aperture Optimization (DAO) method in the Panther TPS. For the purpose of this study, we used the similar planning dose objectives and beam configurations with a similar total number of segments in each pair of DMPO and DAO plans. With similar plan quality, DMPO plans required more MUs than DAO plans. The average number of MUs (expressed in mean ±1 SD) for the DMPO and DAO plans was 1, 169 ± 186 and 671 ± 135 for the nasopharynx cases, and 711 ± 48 and 400 ± 65 for the prostate cases, respectively. The average segment areas (expressed in mean ±1 SD) for the DMPO plans were smaller than those for the DAO plans: 46.0 ± 7.6 cm2 vs. 100.9 ± 32.3 cm2 for the nasopharynx cases, and 58.3 ± 17.2 cm2 vs. 97.4 ± 35.0 cm2 for the prostate cases, respectively. In conclusion, two one‐step optimization algorithms, DMPO and DAO, resulted in much different MU efficiency with the similar number of segments and optimization parameters. This MU difference is largely attributed to the fact that large area segments are used more often in DAO plans than in DMPO plans.PACS number: 87.55.de
机译:在基于IMRT的逐步计划中,与基于通量的优化(或两步优化)相比,基于孔径的优化(或单步优化)被认为是提高监控器(MU)效率的一种手段。但是,取决于单步优化的实现和设计,MU效率的提高程度会有所不同。在本文中,我们试图研究在两个商业治疗计划系统(TPS)中实施的两种单步优化方法的MU效率问题。本研究选择了5例鼻咽癌患者和5例晚期前列腺癌患者。对于这些患者,使用Pinnacle TPS中的直接机器参数优化(DMPO)生成了临床使用的IMRT计划。使用Panther TPS中的直接孔径优化(DAO)方法创建了新的IMRT计划。出于本研究的目的,我们在每对DMPO和DAO计划中使用了相似的计划剂量目标和射束配置,且区段总数相似。与计划质量相似,DMPO计划比DAO计划需要更多的MU。 DMPO和DAO计划的平均MUs(以平均±1 SD表示)鼻咽病例分别为1,169±186和671±135,前列腺病例分别为711±48和400±65。 DMPO计划的平均分段区域(以平均±1 SD表示)小于DAO计划的平均分段区域:46.0​​±7.6 cm 2 与100.9±32.3 cm 2 分别用于鼻咽癌和前列腺癌,分别为58.3±17.2 cm 2 和97.4±35.0±cm 2 。总之,在段数和优化参数相同的情况下,两种单步优化算法DMPO和DAO导致MU效率差异很大。 MU的差异主要是由于DAO计划中使用的大区域段比DMPO计划中使用的更频繁。PACS编号:87.55.de

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号