首页> 外文期刊>Journal of applied clinical medical physics / >IntuitivePlan inverse planning performance evaluation for Gamma Knife radiosurgery of AVMs
【24h】

IntuitivePlan inverse planning performance evaluation for Gamma Knife radiosurgery of AVMs

机译:AVMS伽马刀放射咨询器的IntuitivePlan逆计划性能评估

获取原文
       

摘要

Purpose To compare planning indices achieved using manual and inverse planning approaches for Gamma Knife radiosurgery of arterio‐venous malformations (AVMs). Methods and materials For a series of consecutive AVM patients, treatment plans were manually created by expert planners using Leksell GammaPlan (LGP). Patients were re‐planned using a new commercially released inverse planning system, IntuitivePlan. Plan quality metrics were calculated for both groups of plans and compared. Results Overall, IntuitivePlan created treatment plans of similar quality to expert planners. For some plan quality metrics statistically significant higher scores were achieved for the inversely generated plans (Coverage 96.8% vs 96.3%, P =?0.027; PCI 0.855 vs 0.824, P =?0.042), but others did not show statistically significant differences (Selectivity 0.884 vs 0.856, P =?0.071; GI 2.85 vs 2.76, P =?0.096; Efficiency Index 47.0% vs 48.1%, P =?0.242; Normal Brain V12(cc) 5.81 vs 5.79, P =?0.497). Automatic inverse planning demonstrated significantly shorter planning times over manual planning (3.79 vs 11.58?min, P ?10?6) and greater numbers of isocentres (40.4 vs 10.8, P ?10?6), with an associated cost of longer treatment times (57.97 vs 49.52 min, P =?0.009). When planning and treatment time were combined, there was no significant difference in the overall time between the two methods (61.76 vs 61.10, P =?0.433). Conclusions IntuitivePlan can offer savings on the labor of treatment planning. In many cases, it achieves higher quality indices than those achieved by an “expert planner”.
机译:目的,可以使用手动和逆计划伽马刀畸形(AVM)的伽马刀放射咨询方法进行比较达到规划指标。用于一系列连续AVM患者的方法和材料,使用Leksell Gammaplan(LGP)的专家规划人手动创建治疗计划。使用新的商业释放的逆计划系统重新计划,患者进行IntuitivePlan。针对两组计划和比较计算了计划质量指标。结果总体而言,IntulivePlan为专家规划者创建了类似质量的治疗计划。对于某些计划质量指标,实现了统计上显着的更高分数的成反比计划(覆盖率96.8%VS 96.3%,P = 0.027; PCI 0.855 Vs 0.824,P = 0.042),但其他没有显示出统计上显着的差异(选择性0.884 vs 0.856,p = 0.071; gi 2.85 Vs 2.76,p = 0.096;效率指数47.0%与48.1%,p = 0.242;正常脑V12(Cc)5.81 Vs 5.79,p = 0.497)。自动逆规划在手动规划上展示了明显较短的规划时间(3.79 Vs 11.58?min,P <10?6)和更多的异单元(40.4 Vs 10.8,P <10?6),具有较长的治疗费用时间(57.97 vs 49.52 min,p = 0.009)。当计划和治疗时间合并时,两种方法之间的总时间没有显着差异(61.76 Vs 61.10,P = 0.433)。结论Intuliveplan可以节省治疗计划的劳动力。在许多情况下,它达到了比“专家规划师”实现的指数更高。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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