z-logo
Premium
Optimization of beam‐orientations in conformal radiotherapy treatment planning
Author(s) -
Rowbottom Carl Graham
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.598642
Subject(s) - medicine , radiation therapy , isocenter , radiation treatment planning , cohort , esophagus , orientation (vector space) , nuclear medicine , beam (structure) , radiology , surgery , mathematics , physics , optics , geometry
Traditionally, human planners have devised the treatment parameters used in radiotherapy treatment plans via a manually iterative process. Computer “optimization” algorithms have been shown to improve treatment plans as they can explore much more of the search space in a relatively short time. This thesis examines beam‐orientation computer “optimization” in radiotherapy treatment planning. New techniques were developed and a comparison was performed between treatment plans with “standard,” fixed beam‐orientations and treatment plans with “optimized” beam‐orientations for patients with cancer of the prostate, esophagus, and brain. A cohort of patients was considered in each group to avoid bias from a specific patient geometry. In the case of the patient cohort with cancer of the prostate, a coplanar beam‐orientation “optimization” scheme led to an average increase in the tumor control probability (TCP) of (5.7±1.4)% compared to the standard plans after the dose to the isocenter had been scaled to produce a rectal normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of 1%. For the patient cohort with cancer of the esophagus, the beam‐orientation “optimization” scheme reduced the average lung NTCP by (0.7±0.2)% at the expense of a modest increase in the average spinal cord NTCP of (0.1±0.2)%. A noncoplanar beam‐orientation “optimization” scheme was tested using five patients with tumors of the brain. The scheme reduced the mean orbit doses by (19±4)%, when averaged over the patient cohort. The optic‐nerve mean and maximum doses were reduced by (11±5)% and (12±1)%, respectively. In conclusion, “optimization” of coplanar beam‐orientations led to improved treatment plans, but improvements were relatively modest compared to those from the “optimization” of noncoplanar beam‐orientations.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here