Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:47:19.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dosimetric study on the use of Eclipse beam angle optimiser for conformal planning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2021

Yousif A. M. Yousif Open the ORCID record for Yousif A. M. Yousif [Opens in a new window] ,
Ali Judge  and
Jackson Zifodya
Yousif A. M. Yousif*
Affiliation:
North West Cancer Centre, Tamworth Hospital, Tamworth, NSW, Australia
Ali Judge
Affiliation:
North West Cancer Centre, Tamworth Hospital, Tamworth, NSW, Australia
Jackson Zifodya
Affiliation:
North West Cancer Centre, Tamworth Hospital, Tamworth, NSW, Australia
*
Author for correspondence: Yousif A. M. Yousif, North West Cancer Centre, Tamworth Hospital, Tamworth, NSW, 2340, Australia. Tel: 061 2 6767 8769. Fax: 061 2 67612780. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aim:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of Eclipse’s beam angle optimiser (BAO) for three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy planning.

Materials and methods:

Eleven 3D conformal lung plans, with varied tumour volumes, were retrospectively studied. For each clinical plan, a BAO plan was produced and then optimised by an experienced planner. Plan quality was assessed using International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU)-83 and  Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) recommended dose reporting metrics for dose volume prescribing and reporting.

Results:

Differences in dose volume histograms for both methods showed no clinical significance. Planning target volume Dmax for both plans was comparable and within ICRU guidelines. Reported spinal cord Dmax and the doses to 33% and 67% volume of the heart were within the RTOG recommended limits. Mean lung V20 values for BAO and non-BAO plans were 20 and 16%, respectively. The average monitor units for the BAO plans were about 11% lower. The conformity and homogeneity indices were within the acceptable range for both cases. On average, it took 23 minutes to plan using the BAO compared to 68 minutes for the non-BAO plans.

Conclusion:

Eclipse BAO shows the potential to produce good quality conformal plans and reduce planning time. This process could be further refined with multi-leaf collimator and optimal collimator angle options.

Keywords

beam angle optimiserdosimetryEclipseplanningradiation therapy
Type
Technical Note
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , December 2022 , pp. 599 - 602
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Starkschall, G, Eifel, PJ. An interactive beam-weight optimization tool for three-dimensional radiotherapy treatment planning. Med Phys 1992; 19: 155–163. doi: 10.1118/1.596902.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ezzel, GA. Genetic and geometric optimization of three-dimensional radiation therapy treatment planning. Med Phys 1996; 23: 293–305. doi: 10.1118/1.597660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherouse, GW. A mathematical basis for selection of wedge angle and orientation. Med Phys 1993; 20:1211–1218. doi: 10.1118/1.596972.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dai, J, Zhu, Y. Selecting beam weight and wedge filter on the basis of dose gradient analysis. Med Phys 2000; 27: 1746–1752. doi: 10.1118/1.1286591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xing, L, Hamilton, RJ, Pelizzari, C, Chen, GT. A three-dimensional algorithm for optimizing beam weights and wedge filters. Med Phys 1998; 25: 1858–1865. doi: 10.1118/1.598375.Google ScholarPubMed
Niemierko, A, Urie, M, Goitein, M. Optimization of 3D radiation therapy with both physical and biological end points and constraints. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1992; 23: 99–108. doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(92)90548-V.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bortfeld, T, Schlegel, W, Optimization of beam orientations in radiation therapy: some theoretical considerations. Phys Med Biol 1993; 38: 291–304. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/38/2/006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pesola, K, Inventor Beam Angle Optimization (BAO) –A White Paper 2007; US2007 05/10.Google Scholar
Rocha, H, Dias, JM, Ferreira, BC, Lopes, MC. Beam angle optimization for intensity-modulated radiation therapy using a guided pattern search method. Phys Med Biol 2013; 58: 2939–2953. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/58/9/2939.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, Y, Yao, J, Yao, D. Automatic beam angle selection in IMRT planning using genetic algorithm. Phys Med Biol 2004; 49: 1915–1932. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/49/10/007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, Y, Yao, D, Ya, J, Chen, W. A particle swarm optimization algorithm for beam angle selection in intensity-modulated radiotherapy planning. Phys Med Biol 2005; 50: 3491–3514. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/50/15/002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lei, J, Li, Y. An approaching genetic algorithm for automatic beam angle selection in IMRT planning. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2009; 93: 257–265. doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2008.10.005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ghanbarzadeh, A, Pouladian, M, Shabestani Monfared, A, Mahdavi, SR. The scatter search based algorithm for beam angle optimization in intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Comput Math Methods Med 2018: 4571801. doi: 10.1155/2018/4571801.Google ScholarPubMed