SU‐FF‐T‐523: A Comparison of Head and Neck IMRT Plans Optimized with Biologically Based Versus Dose‐Volume Based Objectives in a Commercial Treatment Planning System

K. Myint; A. Pyakuryal; M. Gopalakrishnan; V. Sathiaseelan; B. Mittal

doi:10.1118/1.3182021

SU‐FF‐T‐523: A Comparison of Head and Neck IMRT Plans Optimized with Biologically Based Versus Dose‐Volume Based Objectives in a Commercial Treatment Planning System

K. Myint, A. Pyakuryal, M. Gopalakrishnan, V. Sathiaseelan, B. Mittal

Radiation Oncology

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the quality of IMRT plans optimized with biologically (EUD) based versus dose‐volume based objectives in a commercial treatment planning system in the treatment of head and neck cancers. Method and Materials: EUD‐based optimization was utilized in the Philips Pinnacle P³IMRT treatment planning system (licensed for Biological Evaluation) to obtain intensity‐modulated radiation therapy plans for five head and neck cancer patients. These plans were evaluated against IMRT plans optimized with conventional dose‐volume objectives. Each patient had twenty‐six organs‐at‐risk (OAR) contoured within the head and neck region. The plans were compared by examining dose‐volume histograms, dosimetric indices and biological endpoints. Dosimetric indices included mean, minimum and maximum doses, as well as target conformality, dose uniformity and the generalized EUD. Biological endpoints included tumor control probability (TCP), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) and uncomplicated tumor control probability (P+). Results: Preliminary results show that the EUD‐based optimization in P³IMRT is capable of improving the sparing of OAR while maintaining target coverage. The biologically‐based optimization resulted in greater dose inhomogeneity and less conformality than the dose‐volume based optimization plans. It was also shown that plans optimized with EUD‐based objectives could obtain similar target coverage as the dose‐volume optimized plans but with fewer parameters. Conclusion: The P³IMRT biologically‐based optimization of head and neck IMRT plans resulted in equivalent target coverage while increasing the sparing of normal tissues compared to dose‐volume based optimization. This system can increase the efficiency of obtaining plans of equivalent or better quality by utilizing fewer parameters and has the potential of being incorporated into routine clinical use.

Original language	English (US)
Number of pages	1
Journal	Medical Physics
Volume	36
Issue number	6
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3182021
State	Published - Jun 2009

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Biophysics
Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1118/1.3182021

Cite this

@article{92406946a4634760a2eab3dfa969016e,

title = "SU‐FF‐T‐523: A Comparison of Head and Neck IMRT Plans Optimized with Biologically Based Versus Dose‐Volume Based Objectives in a Commercial Treatment Planning System",

abstract = "Purpose: To compare the quality of IMRT plans optimized with biologically (EUD) based versus dose‐volume based objectives in a commercial treatment planning system in the treatment of head and neck cancers. Method and Materials: EUD‐based optimization was utilized in the Philips Pinnacle P3IMRT treatment planning system (licensed for Biological Evaluation) to obtain intensity‐modulated radiation therapy plans for five head and neck cancer patients. These plans were evaluated against IMRT plans optimized with conventional dose‐volume objectives. Each patient had twenty‐six organs‐at‐risk (OAR) contoured within the head and neck region. The plans were compared by examining dose‐volume histograms, dosimetric indices and biological endpoints. Dosimetric indices included mean, minimum and maximum doses, as well as target conformality, dose uniformity and the generalized EUD. Biological endpoints included tumor control probability (TCP), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) and uncomplicated tumor control probability (P+). Results: Preliminary results show that the EUD‐based optimization in P3IMRT is capable of improving the sparing of OAR while maintaining target coverage. The biologically‐based optimization resulted in greater dose inhomogeneity and less conformality than the dose‐volume based optimization plans. It was also shown that plans optimized with EUD‐based objectives could obtain similar target coverage as the dose‐volume optimized plans but with fewer parameters. Conclusion: The P3IMRT biologically‐based optimization of head and neck IMRT plans resulted in equivalent target coverage while increasing the sparing of normal tissues compared to dose‐volume based optimization. This system can increase the efficiency of obtaining plans of equivalent or better quality by utilizing fewer parameters and has the potential of being incorporated into routine clinical use.",

author = "K. Myint and A. Pyakuryal and M. Gopalakrishnan and V. Sathiaseelan and B. Mittal",

year = "2009",

month = jun,

doi = "10.1118/1.3182021",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "36",

journal = "Medical Physics",

issn = "0094-2405",

publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",

number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐FF‐T‐523

T2 - A Comparison of Head and Neck IMRT Plans Optimized with Biologically Based Versus Dose‐Volume Based Objectives in a Commercial Treatment Planning System

AU - Myint, K.

AU - Pyakuryal, A.

AU - Gopalakrishnan, M.

AU - Sathiaseelan, V.

AU - Mittal, B.

PY - 2009/6

Y1 - 2009/6

N2 - Purpose: To compare the quality of IMRT plans optimized with biologically (EUD) based versus dose‐volume based objectives in a commercial treatment planning system in the treatment of head and neck cancers. Method and Materials: EUD‐based optimization was utilized in the Philips Pinnacle P3IMRT treatment planning system (licensed for Biological Evaluation) to obtain intensity‐modulated radiation therapy plans for five head and neck cancer patients. These plans were evaluated against IMRT plans optimized with conventional dose‐volume objectives. Each patient had twenty‐six organs‐at‐risk (OAR) contoured within the head and neck region. The plans were compared by examining dose‐volume histograms, dosimetric indices and biological endpoints. Dosimetric indices included mean, minimum and maximum doses, as well as target conformality, dose uniformity and the generalized EUD. Biological endpoints included tumor control probability (TCP), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) and uncomplicated tumor control probability (P+). Results: Preliminary results show that the EUD‐based optimization in P3IMRT is capable of improving the sparing of OAR while maintaining target coverage. The biologically‐based optimization resulted in greater dose inhomogeneity and less conformality than the dose‐volume based optimization plans. It was also shown that plans optimized with EUD‐based objectives could obtain similar target coverage as the dose‐volume optimized plans but with fewer parameters. Conclusion: The P3IMRT biologically‐based optimization of head and neck IMRT plans resulted in equivalent target coverage while increasing the sparing of normal tissues compared to dose‐volume based optimization. This system can increase the efficiency of obtaining plans of equivalent or better quality by utilizing fewer parameters and has the potential of being incorporated into routine clinical use.

AB - Purpose: To compare the quality of IMRT plans optimized with biologically (EUD) based versus dose‐volume based objectives in a commercial treatment planning system in the treatment of head and neck cancers. Method and Materials: EUD‐based optimization was utilized in the Philips Pinnacle P3IMRT treatment planning system (licensed for Biological Evaluation) to obtain intensity‐modulated radiation therapy plans for five head and neck cancer patients. These plans were evaluated against IMRT plans optimized with conventional dose‐volume objectives. Each patient had twenty‐six organs‐at‐risk (OAR) contoured within the head and neck region. The plans were compared by examining dose‐volume histograms, dosimetric indices and biological endpoints. Dosimetric indices included mean, minimum and maximum doses, as well as target conformality, dose uniformity and the generalized EUD. Biological endpoints included tumor control probability (TCP), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) and uncomplicated tumor control probability (P+). Results: Preliminary results show that the EUD‐based optimization in P3IMRT is capable of improving the sparing of OAR while maintaining target coverage. The biologically‐based optimization resulted in greater dose inhomogeneity and less conformality than the dose‐volume based optimization plans. It was also shown that plans optimized with EUD‐based objectives could obtain similar target coverage as the dose‐volume optimized plans but with fewer parameters. Conclusion: The P3IMRT biologically‐based optimization of head and neck IMRT plans resulted in equivalent target coverage while increasing the sparing of normal tissues compared to dose‐volume based optimization. This system can increase the efficiency of obtaining plans of equivalent or better quality by utilizing fewer parameters and has the potential of being incorporated into routine clinical use.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024802003&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024802003&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.3182021

DO - 10.1118/1.3182021

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85024802003

SN - 0094-2405

VL - 36

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

IS - 6

ER -

SU‐FF‐T‐523: A Comparison of Head and Neck IMRT Plans Optimized with Biologically Based Versus Dose‐Volume Based Objectives in a Commercial Treatment Planning System

Abstract

ASJC Scopus subject areas

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this