Article

DASSIM-RT is likely to become the method of choice over conventional IMRT and VMAT for delivery of highly conformal radiotherapy.

Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305-5847.
Medical Physics (Impact Factor: 3.01). 02/2013; 40(2):020601. DOI: 10.1118/1.4773025
Source: PubMed
Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Colin G Orton, Sep 19, 2014
2 Followers
 · 
167 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: Station parameter optimized radiation therapy (SPORT) was recently proposed to fully utilize the technical capability of emerging digital linear accelerators, in which the station parameters of a delivery system, such as aperture shape and weight, couch position/angle, gantry/collimator angle, can be optimized simultaneously. SPORT promises to deliver remarkable radiation dose distributions in an efficient manner, yet there exists no optimization algorithm for its implementation. The purpose of this work is to develop an algorithm to simultaneously optimize the beam sampling and aperture shapes.
    Medical Physics 02/2015; 42(2):1012. DOI:10.1118/1.4906253 · 3.01 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Conventional VMAT optimizes aperture shapes and weights at uniformly sampled stations, which is a generalization of the concept of a control point. Recently, rotational station parameter optimized radiation therapy (SPORT) has been proposed to improve the plan quality by inserting beams to the regions that demand additional intensity modulations, thus formulating non-uniform beam sampling. This work presents a new rotational SPORT planning strategy based on reweighted total-variation (TV) minimization (min.), using beam's-eye-view dosimetrics (BEVD) guided beam selection. The convex programming based reweighted TV min. assures the simplified fluence-map, which facilitates single-aperture selection at each station for single-arc delivery. For the rotational arc treatment planning and non-uniform beam angle setting, the mathematical model needs to be modified by additional penalty term describing the fluence-map similarity and by determination of appropriate angular weighting factors. The proposed algorithm with additional penalty term is capable of achieving more efficient and deliverable plans adaptive to the conventional VMAT and SPORT planning schemes by reducing the dose delivery time about 5 to 10 s in three clinical cases (one prostate and two head-and-neck (HN) cases with a single and multiple targets). The BEVD guided beam selection provides effective and yet easy calculating methodology to select angles for denser, non-uniform angular sampling in SPORT planning. Our BEVD guided SPORT treatment schemes improve the dose sparing to femoral heads in the prostate and brainstem, parotid glands and oral cavity in the two HN cases, where the mean dose reduction of those organs ranges from 0.5 to 2.5 Gy. Also, it increases the conformation number assessing the dose conformity to the target from 0.84, 0.75 and 0.74 to 0.86, 0.79 and 0.80 in the prostate and two HN cases, while preserving the delivery efficiency, relative to conventional single-arc VMAT plans.
    Physics in Medicine and Biology 02/2015; 60(5):N71-N82. DOI:10.1088/0031-9155/60/5/N71 · 2.92 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: Dose and monitor units (MUs) represent two important facets of a radiation therapy treatment. In current practice, verification of a treatment plan is commonly done in dose domain, in which a phantom measurement or forward dose calculation is performed to examine the dosimetric accuracy and the MU settings of a given treatment plan. While it is desirable to verify directly the MU settings, a computational framework for obtaining the MU values from a known dose distribution has yet to be developed. This work presents a strategy to calculate independently the MUs from a given dose distribution of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and station parameter optimized radiation therapy (SPORT).
    Medical Physics 02/2015; 42(2):918. DOI:10.1118/1.4906185 · 3.01 Impact Factor