Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 6, 2025
Proton Therapy Delivery and Its Clinical Application in Select Solid Tumor Malignancies
Published on: February 6, 2019
Comparison of Progressive Resolution Optimizer and Photon Optimizer algorithms in RapidArc delivery for head and neck
Venugopal Sundaram1,2, D Khanna1, P Mohandass3
1Department of Applied Physics, Karunya Institute of Technology and Sciences, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India.
Background:
The aim of this study is to analyze and verify characterization of two different algorithms using simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in head and neck (H&N) plans.
Materials And Methods:
In our study 15 patients were selected, who received radiation therapy by using Eclipse volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) Progressive Resolution Optimizer (PRO) algorithm 15.1. The same cases were re-optimized using a Photon Optimizer (PO) algorithm 15.6.A total of 30 treatment plans (15 PRO-VMAT plans and 15 PO-VMAT plans) were produced in the present study. All plans were created using double full arcs, keeping the identical constraints, cost functions and optimization time. Plan evaluation was done using planning target volume (PTV) parameters (D98%, D95%, D50%, D2% mean dose and V105%), homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), Monitor unit (MU) per degree with control points (CP), organ at risk (OAR) doses and gamma verification (Portal dosimetry and ArcCHECK) values were evaluated. Treatment was delivered in Varian Truebeam 2.5, energy 6 MV with Millennium 120 multileaf collimator (MLC).
Results:
The PTV coverage (D95%) for PRO and PO were 98.7 ± 0.8 Gy, 98.8 ± 0.9 Gy, HI were 0.09 ± 0.02 and 0.09 ± 0.02, CI were 0.98 ± 0.01 and 0.99 ± 0.01. Monitor units (MU) for PRO and PO were 647.5 ± 137.9, 655.2 ± 138.4. The Portal dose results were [3%, 3mm (%) & 1 %, 1 mm (%)] for PO and PRO 100 ± 0.1, 95.1 ± 1.4 and 100 ± 0.1, 95.2 ± 1.3. For ArcCHECK were 99.9 ± 0.1, 94.7 ± 3.0 and 99.9 ± 0.1, 93.5 ± 3.9, respectively.
Conclusion:
Results showed that PTV coverage and OAR doses were comparable. For individual patients CI and HI of PO showed slightly higher values than PRO. MUs for PO were slightly increased as compared to PRO. MU per degree with each individual control points generated by PO showed a high degree of modulation compared to PRO. Hence, new PO optimizer can produce a comparable degree of plan while using the same PRO objectives.
More Related Videos
08:25Radiation Planning Assistant - A Streamlined, Fully Automated Radiotherapy Treatment Planning System
Published on: April 11, 2018
07:57Positron Emission Tomography-based Dose Painting Radiation Therapy in a Glioblastoma Rat Model using the Small Animal Radiation Research Platform
Published on: March 24, 2022