skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

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{sup 3} and 153.6 and 321.3 cm{sup 3}, whereas OAR ranged between 8.3 and 47.8 cm{sup 3} and 68.3 and 469.2 cm{sup 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 reductionmore » 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.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [3];  [1];  [3]
  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Reid Hospital and Health Care Services, Richmond, IN (United States)
  2. (United States)
  3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
21590487
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Journal Name:
Medical Dosimetry
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 36; Journal Issue: 3; Other Information: DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2010.07.001; PII: S0958-3947(10)00113-5; Copyright (c) 2011 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); Journal ID: ISSN 0958-3947
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; ALGORITHMS; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; DOSIMETRY; GEOMETRY; HAZARDS; INTEGRAL DOSES; NECK; OPTIMIZATION; PROSTATE; RADIOTHERAPY; BODY; DOSES; EVALUATION; GLANDS; MALE GENITALS; MATHEMATICAL LOGIC; MATHEMATICS; MEDICINE; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; ORGANS; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOLOGY; THERAPY

Citation Formats

Srivastava, Shiv P., Department of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, Das, Indra J., E-mail: idas@iupui.edu, Kumar, Arvind, and Johnstone, Peter A.S. Dosimetric Comparison of Manual and Beam Angle Optimization of Gantry Angles in IMRT. United States: N. p., 2011. Web. doi:10.1016/j.meddos.2010.07.001.
Srivastava, Shiv P., Department of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, Das, Indra J., E-mail: idas@iupui.edu, Kumar, Arvind, & Johnstone, Peter A.S. Dosimetric Comparison of Manual and Beam Angle Optimization of Gantry Angles in IMRT. United States. doi:10.1016/j.meddos.2010.07.001.
Srivastava, Shiv P., Department of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, Das, Indra J., E-mail: idas@iupui.edu, Kumar, Arvind, and Johnstone, Peter A.S. Sat . "Dosimetric Comparison of Manual and Beam Angle Optimization of Gantry Angles in IMRT". United States. doi:10.1016/j.meddos.2010.07.001.
@article{osti_21590487,
title = {Dosimetric Comparison of Manual and Beam Angle Optimization of Gantry Angles in IMRT},
author = {Srivastava, Shiv P. and Department of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN and Das, Indra J., E-mail: idas@iupui.edu and Kumar, Arvind and Johnstone, Peter A.S.},
abstractNote = {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{sup 3} and 153.6 and 321.3 cm{sup 3}, whereas OAR ranged between 8.3 and 47.8 cm{sup 3} and 68.3 and 469.2 cm{sup 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.},
doi = {10.1016/j.meddos.2010.07.001},
journal = {Medical Dosimetry},
issn = {0958-3947},
number = 3,
volume = 36,
place = {United States},
year = {2011},
month = {10}
}