Effects of minimum monitor unit threshold on spot scanning proton plan quality

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (9) ◽  
pp. 091703 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Howard ◽  
Chris Beltran ◽  
Charles S. Mayo ◽  
Michael G. Herman
Keyword(s):  
Monitor Unit ◽  
Plan Quality ◽  
Spot Scanning

MO-FF-A3-03: The Impact of Monitor Unit Constraints on Plan Quality of IMPT Planning Using Single-Field Optimization

2010 ◽  
Vol 37 (6Part12) ◽  
pp. 3365-3365
Author(s):  
X Zhu ◽  
N Sahoo ◽  
X Zhang ◽  
D Robertson ◽  
H Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Monitor Unit ◽  
Plan Quality ◽  
Single Field ◽  
The Impact

Impact of spot size on plan quality of spot scanning proton radiosurgery for peripheral brain lesions

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (12) ◽  
pp. 121705 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dongxu Wang ◽  
Blake Dirksen ◽  
Daniel E. Hyer ◽  
John M. Buatti ◽  
Arshin Sheybani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spot Size ◽  
Brain Lesions ◽  
Plan Quality ◽  
Spot Scanning

Beam complexity and monitor unit efficiency comparison in two different volumetric modulated arc therapy delivery using automated planning

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chengqiang Li ◽  
Cheng Tao ◽  
Tong Bai ◽  
Zhenjiang Li ◽  
Ying Tong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Delivery Systems ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Monitor Unit ◽  
Plan Quality ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Efficiency Comparison ◽  
Beam Complexity

Abstract Background: To investigate the beam complexity and monitor unit（MU）efficiency issues for two different volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery technologies for patients with left-sided breast cancer (BC) and nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Methods: Twelve left-sided BC and seven NPC cases were enrolled in this study. Each delivered treatment plan was optimized in Pinnacle 3 treatment planning system with Auto-Planning module for Trilogy and Synergy systems. Similar planning dose objectives and beam configuration were used for each site in two different delivery systems to produce clinically acceptable plans. Beam complexity was evaluated in terms of segment area(SA), segment width(SW), leaf sequence variability(LSV), aperture area variability(AAV), modulation complexity score(MCS) based on MLC sequence and MU. Results: With similar plan quality, the average SAs for Trilogy plans were smaller than those for Synergy plans: 55.5 ± 21.3 cm 2 vs. 66.3 ± 17.9 cm 2 (p<0.05) for the NPC cases, and 100.7 ± 49.2 cm 2 vs. 108.5 ± 42.7 cm 2 (p<0.05) for BC cases, respectively. The SW was statistically significant for two delivery systems (NPC: 6.87±1.95cm vs.6.72±2.71cm, p < 0.05; BC: 8.84±2.56cm vs.8.09±2.63cm, p < 0.05). LSV was statistically significant smaller for Trilogy (NPC: 0.84±0.033 vs.0.86±0.033, p < 0.05; BC: 0.89±0.026 vs.0.90±0.26, p < 0.05). The mean AAV was statistically significant larger for Trilogy than Synergy (NPC: 0.18±0.064 vs.0.14±0.037, p < 0.05; BC: 0.46±0.15 vs.0.33±0.13, p < 0.05). The MCS values for the Trilogy were higher than those for the Synergy: 0.14 ± 0.016vs. 0.12 ± 0.017 (p<0.05) for the NPC cases, and 0.42 ± 0.106 vs. 0.30 ± 0.087(p<0.05) for the BC cases. Compared with Synergy plans, the average MU for Trilogy plans were larger: 828.6±74.1MU and 782.9±85.2MU (p>0.05) for the NPC cases, and 444.8±61.3MU and 393.8±75.3MU (p>0.05) for the BC cases. Conclusions: The pinnacle 3 Auto planning system can optimize BC and NPC plans to obtain the same plan quality using Trilogy and Synergy systems. We found that this two systems resulted in different SA, SW, LSV, AAV and MCS. As a result, we suggested that beam complexity should be considered in providing further methodologies while optimizing VMAT auto planning.

Minimum-monitor-unit optimization via a stochastic coordinate descent method

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jian-Feng Cai ◽  
Ronald C Chen ◽  
Junyi Fan ◽  
Hao Gao
Keyword(s):  
Optimization Algorithm ◽  
Degrees Of Freedom ◽  
Convex Relaxation ◽  
Relaxation Method ◽  
Descent Method ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Gradient Descent Method ◽  
Monitor Unit ◽  
Plan Quality ◽  
Index Set

Abstract Objective: Deliverable proton spots are subject to the minimum monitor-unit (MMU) constraint. The MMU optimization problem with relatively large MMU threshold remains mathematically challenging due to its strong nonconvexity. However, the MMU optimization is fundamental to proton radiotherapy (RT), including efficient IMPT, proton arc delivery (ARC), and FLASH-RT. This work aims to develop a new optimization algorithm that is effective in solving the MMU problem. Approach: Our new algorithm is primarily based on stochastic coordinate decent (SCD) method. It involves three major steps: first to decouple the determination of active sets for dose-volume-histogram (DVH) planning constraints from the MMU problem via iterative convex relaxation method; second to handle the nonconvexity of the MMU constraint via SCD to localize the index set of nonzero spots; third to solve convex subproblems projected to this convex set of nonzero spots via projected gradient descent method. Main results: Our new method SCD is validated and compared with alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) for IMPT and ARC. The results suggest SCD had better plan quality than ADMM, e.g., the improvement of conformal index (CI) from 0.51 to 0.71 during IMPT, and from 0.22 to 0.86 during ARC for the lung case. Moreover, SCD successfully handled the nonconvexity from large MMU threshold that ADMM failed to handle, in the sense that (1) the plan quality from ARC was worse than IMPT (e.g., CI was 0.51 with IMPT and 0.22 with ARC for the lung case), when ADMM was used; (2) in contrast, with SCD, ARC achieved better plan quality than IMPT (e.g., CI was 0.71 with IMPT and 0.86 with ARC for the lung case), which is compatible with more optimization degrees of freedom from ARC compared to IMPT. Significance: To the best of our knowledge, our new MMU optimization method via SCD can effectively handle the nonconvexity from large MMU threshold that none of the current methods can solve. Therefore, we have developed a unique MMU optimization algorithm via SCD that can be used for efficient IMPT, proton arc delivery (ARC), FLASH-RT, and other particle RT applications where large MMU threshold is desirable (e.g., for the delivery of high dose rates or/and a large number of spots).

scholarly journals Beam complexity and monitor unit efficiency comparison in two different volumetric modulated arc therapy delivery systems using automated planning

BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chengqiang Li ◽  
Cheng Tao ◽  
Tong Bai ◽  
Zhenjiang Li ◽  
Ying Tong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Delivery Systems ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Monitor Unit ◽  
Plan Quality ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Efficiency Comparison ◽  
Beam Complexity

Abstract Background To investigate the beam complexity and monitor unit (MU) efficiency issues for two different volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery technologies for patients with left-sided breast cancer (BC) and nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Methods Twelve left-sided BC and seven NPC cases were enrolled in this study. Each delivered treatment plan was optimized in the Pinnacle3 treatment planning system with the Auto-Planning module for the Trilogy and Synergy systems. Similar planning dose objectives and beam configurations were used for each site in the two different delivery systems to produce clinically acceptable plans. The beam complexity was evaluated in terms of the segment area (SA), segment width (SW), leaf sequence variability (LSV), aperture area variability (AAV), and modulation complexity score (MCS) based on the multileaf collimator sequence and MU. Plan delivery and a gamma evaluation were performed using a helical diode array. Results With similar plan quality, the average SAs for the Trilogy plans were smaller than those for the Synergy plans: 55.5 ± 21.3 cm2 vs. 66.3 ± 17.9 cm2 (p < 0.05) for the NPC cases and 100.7 ± 49.2 cm2 vs. 108.5 ± 42.7 cm2 (p < 0.05) for the BC cases, respectively. The SW was statistically significant for the two delivery systems (NPC: 6.87 ± 1.95 cm vs. 6.72 ± 2.71 cm, p < 0.05; BC: 8.84 ± 2.56 cm vs. 8.09 ± 2.63 cm, p < 0.05). The LSV was significantly smaller for Trilogy (NPC: 0.84 ± 0.033 vs. 0.86 ± 0.033, p < 0.05; BC: 0.89 ± 0.026 vs. 0.90 ± 0.26, p < 0.05). The mean AAV was significantly larger for Trilogy than for Synergy (NPC: 0.18 ± 0.064 vs. 0.14 ± 0.037, p < 0.05; BC: 0.46 ± 0.15 vs. 0.33 ± 0.13, p < 0.05). The MCS values for Trilogy were higher than those for Synergy: 0.14 ± 0.016 vs. 0.12 ± 0.017 (p < 0.05) for the NPC cases and 0.42 ± 0.106 vs. 0.30 ± 0.087 (p < 0.05) for the BC cases. Compared with the Synergy plans, the average MUs for the Trilogy plans were larger: 828.6 ± 74.1 MU and 782.9 ± 85.2 MU (p > 0.05) for the NPC cases and 444.8 ± 61.3 MU and 393.8 ± 75.3 MU (p > 0.05) for the BC cases. The gamma index agreement scores were never below 91% using 3 mm/3% (global) distance to agreement and dose difference criteria and a 10% lower dose exclusion threshold. Conclusions The Pinnacle3 Auto-Planning system can optimize BC and NPC plans to achieve the same plan quality using both the Trilogy and Synergy systems. We found that these two systems resulted in different SAs, SWs, LSVs, AAVs and MCSs. As a result, we suggested that the beam complexity should be considered in the development of further methodologies while optimizing VMAT autoplanning.

scholarly journals Beam complexity and monitor unit efficiency comparison in two different volumetric modulated arc therapy delivery using automated planning

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chengqiang Li ◽  
Cheng Tao ◽  
Tong Bai ◽  
Zhenjiang Li ◽  
Ying Tong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Delivery Systems ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Monitor Unit ◽  
Plan Quality ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Efficiency Comparison ◽  
Beam Complexity

Abstract Background: To investigate the beam complexity and monitor unit（MU）efficiency issues for two different volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery technologies for patients with left-sided breast cancer (BC) and nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Methods: Twelve left-sided BC and seven NPC cases were enrolled in this study. Each delivered treatment plan was optimized in Pinnacle 3 treatment planning system with Auto-Planning module for Trilogy and Synergy systems. Similar planning dose objectives and beam configuration were used for each site in two different delivery systems to produce clinically acceptable plans. Beam complexity was evaluated in terms of segment area(SA), segment width(SW), leaf sequence variability(LSV), aperture area variability(AAV), modulation complexity score(MCS) based on MLC sequence and MU. Results: With similar plan quality, the average SAs for Trilogy plans were smaller than those for Synergy plans: 55.5 ± 21.3 cm 2 vs. 66.3 ± 17.9 cm 2 (p<0.05) for the NPC cases, and 100.7 ± 49.2 cm 2 vs. 108.5 ± 42.7 cm 2 (p<0.05) for BC cases, respectively. The SW was statistically significant for two delivery systems (NPC: 6.87±1.95cm vs.6.72±2.71cm, p < 0.05; BC: 8.84±2.56cm vs.8.09±2.63cm, p < 0.05). LSV was statistically significant smaller for Trilogy (NPC: 0.84±0.033 vs.0.86±0.033, p < 0.05; BC: 0.89±0.026 vs.0.90±0.26, p < 0.05). The mean AAV was statistically significant larger for Trilogy than Synergy (NPC: 0.18±0.064 vs.0.14±0.037, p < 0.05; BC: 0.46±0.15 vs.0.33±0.13, p < 0.05). The MCS values for the Trilogy were higher than those for the Synergy: 0.14 ± 0.016vs. 0.12 ± 0.017 (p<0.05) for the NPC cases, and 0.42 ± 0.106 vs. 0.30 ± 0.087(p<0.05) for the BC cases. Compared with Synergy plans, the average MU for Trilogy plans were larger: 828.6±74.1MU and 782.9±85.2MU (p>0.05) for the NPC cases, and 444.8±61.3MU and 393.8±75.3MU (p>0.05) for the BC cases. Conclusions: The pinnacle 3 Auto planning system can optimize BC and NPC plans to obtain the same plan quality using Trilogy and Synergy systems. We found that this two systems resulted in different SA, SW, LSV, AAV and MCS. As a result, we suggested that beam complexity should be considered in providing further methodologies while optimizing VMAT auto planning.

TH-A-213AB-09: An Investigation of the Impact of Spot Spacing on Plan Quality Using IMPT Optimization Incorporating Deliverable Monitor Unit Constraints

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (6Part29) ◽  
pp. 3981-3981
Author(s):  
W Cao ◽  
X Li ◽  
G Lim ◽  
Y Li ◽  
X Zhu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Monitor Unit ◽  
Plan Quality ◽  
The Impact
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document