Dosimetric Comparison of Manual and Beam Angle Optimization of Gantry Angles in IMRT

Shiv P. Srivastava, Indra J. Das, Arvind Kumar, Peter A S Johnstone

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Dosimetric comparison of manual beam angle selection (MBS) and beam angle optimization (BAO) for IMRT plans is investigated retrospectively for 15 head and neck and prostate patients. The head and neck and prostate had planning target volumes (PTVs) ranging between 96.0 and 319.9 cm 3 and 153.6 and 321.3 cm 3, whereas OAR ranged between 8.3 and 47.8 cm 3 and 68.3 and 469.2 cm 3, respectively. In MBS, a standard coplanar 7-9 fields equally spaced gantry angles were used. In BAO, the selection of gantry angle was optimized by the algorithm for the same number of beams. The optimization and dose-volume constraints were kept the same for both techniques. Treatment planning was performed on the Eclipse treatment planning system. Our results showed that the dose-volume histogram for PTV are nearly identical in both techniques but BAO provided superior sparing of the organs at risk compared with the MBS. Also, MBS produced statistically significant higher monitor units (MU) and segments than the BAO; 13.1 ± 6.6% (p = 0.012) and 10.4 ± 13.6% (p = 0.140), and 14.6 ± 5.6% (p = 1.003E-5) and 12.6 ± 7.4% (p = 0.76E-3) for head and neck and prostate cases, respectively. The reduction in MU translates into the reduction in total body and integral dose. It is concluded that BAO provides advantage over MBS for most intenisty-modulated radiation therapy cases.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)313-316
Number of pages4
JournalMedical Dosimetry
Volume36
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2011

Fingerprint

Prostate
Neck
Head
Organs at Risk
Radiotherapy
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Dosimetry
  • IMRT
  • Manual beam geometry
  • Optimized beam geometry

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Dosimetric Comparison of Manual and Beam Angle Optimization of Gantry Angles in IMRT. / Srivastava, Shiv P.; Das, Indra J.; Kumar, Arvind; Johnstone, Peter A S.

In: Medical Dosimetry, Vol. 36, No. 3, 2011, p. 313-316.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Srivastava, Shiv P. ; Das, Indra J. ; Kumar, Arvind ; Johnstone, Peter A S. / Dosimetric Comparison of Manual and Beam Angle Optimization of Gantry Angles in IMRT. In: Medical Dosimetry. 2011 ; Vol. 36, No. 3. pp. 313-316.
@article{1b7032fc66bc46aeb7c448e06c9f2a8f,
title = "Dosimetric Comparison of Manual and Beam Angle Optimization of Gantry Angles in IMRT",
abstract = "Dosimetric comparison of manual beam angle selection (MBS) and beam angle optimization (BAO) for IMRT plans is investigated retrospectively for 15 head and neck and prostate patients. The head and neck and prostate had planning target volumes (PTVs) ranging between 96.0 and 319.9 cm 3 and 153.6 and 321.3 cm 3, whereas OAR ranged between 8.3 and 47.8 cm 3 and 68.3 and 469.2 cm 3, respectively. In MBS, a standard coplanar 7-9 fields equally spaced gantry angles were used. In BAO, the selection of gantry angle was optimized by the algorithm for the same number of beams. The optimization and dose-volume constraints were kept the same for both techniques. Treatment planning was performed on the Eclipse treatment planning system. Our results showed that the dose-volume histogram for PTV are nearly identical in both techniques but BAO provided superior sparing of the organs at risk compared with the MBS. Also, MBS produced statistically significant higher monitor units (MU) and segments than the BAO; 13.1 ± 6.6{\%} (p = 0.012) and 10.4 ± 13.6{\%} (p = 0.140), and 14.6 ± 5.6{\%} (p = 1.003E-5) and 12.6 ± 7.4{\%} (p = 0.76E-3) for head and neck and prostate cases, respectively. The reduction in MU translates into the reduction in total body and integral dose. It is concluded that BAO provides advantage over MBS for most intenisty-modulated radiation therapy cases.",
keywords = "Dosimetry, IMRT, Manual beam geometry, Optimized beam geometry",
author = "Srivastava, {Shiv P.} and Das, {Indra J.} and Arvind Kumar and Johnstone, {Peter A S}",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1016/j.meddos.2010.07.001",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "313--316",
journal = "Medical Dosimetry",
issn = "0958-3947",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dosimetric Comparison of Manual and Beam Angle Optimization of Gantry Angles in IMRT

AU - Srivastava, Shiv P.

AU - Das, Indra J.

AU - Kumar, Arvind

AU - Johnstone, Peter A S

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Dosimetric comparison of manual beam angle selection (MBS) and beam angle optimization (BAO) for IMRT plans is investigated retrospectively for 15 head and neck and prostate patients. The head and neck and prostate had planning target volumes (PTVs) ranging between 96.0 and 319.9 cm 3 and 153.6 and 321.3 cm 3, whereas OAR ranged between 8.3 and 47.8 cm 3 and 68.3 and 469.2 cm 3, respectively. In MBS, a standard coplanar 7-9 fields equally spaced gantry angles were used. In BAO, the selection of gantry angle was optimized by the algorithm for the same number of beams. The optimization and dose-volume constraints were kept the same for both techniques. Treatment planning was performed on the Eclipse treatment planning system. Our results showed that the dose-volume histogram for PTV are nearly identical in both techniques but BAO provided superior sparing of the organs at risk compared with the MBS. Also, MBS produced statistically significant higher monitor units (MU) and segments than the BAO; 13.1 ± 6.6% (p = 0.012) and 10.4 ± 13.6% (p = 0.140), and 14.6 ± 5.6% (p = 1.003E-5) and 12.6 ± 7.4% (p = 0.76E-3) for head and neck and prostate cases, respectively. The reduction in MU translates into the reduction in total body and integral dose. It is concluded that BAO provides advantage over MBS for most intenisty-modulated radiation therapy cases.

AB - Dosimetric comparison of manual beam angle selection (MBS) and beam angle optimization (BAO) for IMRT plans is investigated retrospectively for 15 head and neck and prostate patients. The head and neck and prostate had planning target volumes (PTVs) ranging between 96.0 and 319.9 cm 3 and 153.6 and 321.3 cm 3, whereas OAR ranged between 8.3 and 47.8 cm 3 and 68.3 and 469.2 cm 3, respectively. In MBS, a standard coplanar 7-9 fields equally spaced gantry angles were used. In BAO, the selection of gantry angle was optimized by the algorithm for the same number of beams. The optimization and dose-volume constraints were kept the same for both techniques. Treatment planning was performed on the Eclipse treatment planning system. Our results showed that the dose-volume histogram for PTV are nearly identical in both techniques but BAO provided superior sparing of the organs at risk compared with the MBS. Also, MBS produced statistically significant higher monitor units (MU) and segments than the BAO; 13.1 ± 6.6% (p = 0.012) and 10.4 ± 13.6% (p = 0.140), and 14.6 ± 5.6% (p = 1.003E-5) and 12.6 ± 7.4% (p = 0.76E-3) for head and neck and prostate cases, respectively. The reduction in MU translates into the reduction in total body and integral dose. It is concluded that BAO provides advantage over MBS for most intenisty-modulated radiation therapy cases.

KW - Dosimetry

KW - IMRT

KW - Manual beam geometry

KW - Optimized beam geometry

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79960903976&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79960903976&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.meddos.2010.07.001

DO - 10.1016/j.meddos.2010.07.001

M3 - Article

C2 - 20817436

AN - SCOPUS:79960903976

VL - 36

SP - 313

EP - 316

JO - Medical Dosimetry

JF - Medical Dosimetry

SN - 0958-3947

IS - 3

ER -