Photon optimizer (PO) vs progressive resolution optimizer (PRO): a conformality- and complexity-based comparison for intensity-modulated arc therapy plans
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 19, 2026

Proton Therapy Delivery and Its Clinical Application in Select Solid Tumor Malignancies
Published on: February 6, 2019
Diana Binny1, Tanya Kairn2, Craig M Lancaster3
1Radiation Oncology Centres, Redlands, Australia; Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia; Cancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
Abstract:
This study aimed to provide guidance on the advantages and limitations of a new optimizer, "photon optimizer" (PO), when compared with its predecessor, "progressive resolution optimizer" (PRO), for intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) plans. Eleven study plans that included a cohort of prostate, head and neck, and brain treatment sites were optimized using both PRO and PO algorithms. A plan template using the same objectives for the same number of iterations was used for each optimized plan to obtain hypothetical treatment plans that would be comparable with a clinical plan. Analysis was performed using plan conformity-based parameters such as target volume coverage factor, conformation number and homogeneity indices, and plan complexity assessment parameters such as small aperture score, modulation indices, and monitor unit variation with arc angle for prostate, brain and head, and neck IMAT treatment plans. Plan conformality analysis demonstrated that conformation numbers, target volume coverage factors, and homogeneity indices produced by the 2 optimizers were comparable for most anatomic sites. IMAT treatment plans produced using the PRO optimizer were found to be less complex than plans produced using the PO optimizer, in terms of multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf position variability and modulation complexity scores. Similarly, the PRO optimizer was shown to produce treatment plans that used fewer monitor units (and generally fewer monitor unit per degree of arc rotation) than PO optimizer. This study demonstrated that the PO optimizer can produce IMAT treatment plans with a similar degree of dose conformity to the target volume and generally improved organ at risk sparing, compared with the PRO optimizer. Better coverage to organs at risk produced by plans optimized using PO was observed to have higher MLC variability and monitor units. Therefore, careful evaluation of treatment plan conformity and complexity before assessing its deliverability is recommended when implementing the routine use of PO optimizer.
Related Concept Videos
Optimization Problems
Computed Tomography
The technique was invented in the 1970s and is based on the principle that as X-rays pass through the body, they are absorbed or reflected at different levels. In the technique, a patient lies on a motorized platform while a computerized axial tomography (CAT) scanner rotates...
Determination of Multiple Dosing Parameters: Loading and Maintenance Doses
Pharmacokinetic Models: Comparison and Selection Criterion
Physiological models take a detailed approach by considering specific molecular processes. They can predict drug distribution, metabolism, and elimination changes, providing a comprehensive understanding of how drugs interact with the body.
Imaging Studies III: Computed Tomography
Radiation: Applications
The average...

