Comparison of intensity modulated radiotherapy plan optimisation methods for a 1.5 T MR-LinacCitation formats

  • External authors:
  • Robert Chuter
  • Hafid Akhiat
  • Peter Voet

Standard

Comparison of intensity modulated radiotherapy plan optimisation methods for a 1.5 T MR-Linac. / Chuter, Robert; Van Herk, Marcel; Akhiat, Hafid ; Voet, Peter ; Choudhury, Ananya; Mcwilliam, Alan.

In: Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Chuter, Robert ; Van Herk, Marcel ; Akhiat, Hafid ; Voet, Peter ; Choudhury, Ananya ; Mcwilliam, Alan. / Comparison of intensity modulated radiotherapy plan optimisation methods for a 1.5 T MR-Linac. In: Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics. 2018.

Bibtex

@article{f7840b80f4e44199847ec2d101f5ee23,
title = "Comparison of intensity modulated radiotherapy plan optimisation methods for a 1.5 T MR-Linac",
abstract = "Purpose: For the 1.5 T Elekta MR-Linac it is essential that the optimisation of a treatment plan accounts for the electron return effect on the planned dose distribution. The ability of two algorithms for the first stage fluence optimisation, pencil beam (PB) and Monte Carlo (MC), to produce acceptable plan quality was investigated. Optimisation time for each algorithm was also compared. Methods: Ten head and neck patients, ten lung patients and five prostate patients were selected from the clinical archive. These were retrospectively planned using a research version of Monaco with both the PB and MC algorithms for the fluence optimisation stage. After full optimisation DVH parameters, optimisation time and the number of Monitor Units (MU) as a measure of plan complexity, were extracted. Results: There were no clinically significant differences between any of the DVH parameters studied or the total number of MUs between using PB or MC for stage 1 optimisation across the three patient groups. However, planning time increased by a factor of ten using MC algorithms for stage 1. Conclusion: The use of MC calculations compared to PB, for stage 1 fluence optimisation, results in increased planning time without",
keywords = "MR-linac, treatment planning, optimisation",
author = "Robert Chuter and {Van Herk}, Marcel and Hafid Akhiat and Peter Voet and Ananya Choudhury and Alan Mcwilliam",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1002/acm2.12475",
language = "English",
journal = "Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics",
issn = "1526-9914",
publisher = "John Wiley & Sons Ltd",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of intensity modulated radiotherapy plan optimisation methods for a 1.5 T MR-Linac

AU - Chuter, Robert

AU - Van Herk, Marcel

AU - Akhiat, Hafid

AU - Voet, Peter

AU - Choudhury, Ananya

AU - Mcwilliam, Alan

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Purpose: For the 1.5 T Elekta MR-Linac it is essential that the optimisation of a treatment plan accounts for the electron return effect on the planned dose distribution. The ability of two algorithms for the first stage fluence optimisation, pencil beam (PB) and Monte Carlo (MC), to produce acceptable plan quality was investigated. Optimisation time for each algorithm was also compared. Methods: Ten head and neck patients, ten lung patients and five prostate patients were selected from the clinical archive. These were retrospectively planned using a research version of Monaco with both the PB and MC algorithms for the fluence optimisation stage. After full optimisation DVH parameters, optimisation time and the number of Monitor Units (MU) as a measure of plan complexity, were extracted. Results: There were no clinically significant differences between any of the DVH parameters studied or the total number of MUs between using PB or MC for stage 1 optimisation across the three patient groups. However, planning time increased by a factor of ten using MC algorithms for stage 1. Conclusion: The use of MC calculations compared to PB, for stage 1 fluence optimisation, results in increased planning time without

AB - Purpose: For the 1.5 T Elekta MR-Linac it is essential that the optimisation of a treatment plan accounts for the electron return effect on the planned dose distribution. The ability of two algorithms for the first stage fluence optimisation, pencil beam (PB) and Monte Carlo (MC), to produce acceptable plan quality was investigated. Optimisation time for each algorithm was also compared. Methods: Ten head and neck patients, ten lung patients and five prostate patients were selected from the clinical archive. These were retrospectively planned using a research version of Monaco with both the PB and MC algorithms for the fluence optimisation stage. After full optimisation DVH parameters, optimisation time and the number of Monitor Units (MU) as a measure of plan complexity, were extracted. Results: There were no clinically significant differences between any of the DVH parameters studied or the total number of MUs between using PB or MC for stage 1 optimisation across the three patient groups. However, planning time increased by a factor of ten using MC algorithms for stage 1. Conclusion: The use of MC calculations compared to PB, for stage 1 fluence optimisation, results in increased planning time without

KW - MR-linac

KW - treatment planning

KW - optimisation

U2 - 10.1002/acm2.12475

DO - 10.1002/acm2.12475

M3 - Article

JO - Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics

T2 - Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics

JF - Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics

SN - 1526-9914

ER -