Comparison of Dosimetric Parameters between Two Treatment Planning Methods of IMRT in Brain Tumour Patients
Authors/Creators
- 1. Junior Resident, Department of Radiation Oncology, Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences, Bareilly, UP, India
- 2. Associate Professor, Department of Radiation Oncology, Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences, Bareilly, UP, India
- 3. Professor and Head, Department of Radiation Oncology, Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences, Bareilly, UP, India
- 4. Assistant Professor and Medical Physicist, Department of Radiation Oncology, Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences, Bareilly, UP, India
Description
Introduction: Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) is becoming the standard of practice since it delivers precision radiotherapy to the planning target volumes (PTV) and minimizes dose to Organs-At-Risk (OARs). Two planning methodologies exist i.e. Preselected Beam Optimization (PSBO) or Beam Angle Optimization (BAO) which are selected by the physicist and the treatment planning system respectively. Both methods aim to achieve prescription to planning target volume (PTV) with maximal sparing of organs at risk (OARs). The present study aims to compare the dosimetric parameters between the Beam angle optimization (BAO) with preselected beam angle orientation (PSBO) in brain tumour patients. Materials and Methods: Present study was conducted in the department of Radiation Oncology. Twenty patients of brain tumour planned by PSBO were randomly selected. A new plan was created for each patient with BAO method. Dosimetric parameters of PTV (V95%, Dmax, Dmean, D2, D50, D98, HI, CI, and MUs) and OAR (brainstem, eyes, lenses, optic nerves, cochleae, hippocampi, and normal brain tissue) were compared. Results: The dosimetric parameters of PTV in PSBO and BAO plans are almost similar and none of the parameters have shown a statistically significant difference. There was a difference of >1Gy in various OARs like brainstem Dmax, optic nerves Dmax, lenses Dmax, Dmin Dmax of right hippocampus and left hippocampus Dmin, though it was not statistically significant. Rest of the OARs like, both eyes, cochleae and normal brain had a difference of <1Gy and not statistically significant. Conclusion: Dosimetric parameters of PSBO patient planning method are equivalent to BAO method. PSBO may be more useful since it is an individualized planning and may further utilise less time with growing experience of the medical physicist.
Abstract (English)
Introduction: Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) is becoming the standard of practice since it delivers precision radiotherapy to the planning target volumes (PTV) and minimizes dose to Organs-At-Risk (OARs). Two planning methodologies exist i.e. Preselected Beam Optimization (PSBO) or Beam Angle Optimization (BAO) which are selected by the physicist and the treatment planning system respectively. Both methods aim to achieve prescription to planning target volume (PTV) with maximal sparing of organs at risk (OARs). The present study aims to compare the dosimetric parameters between the Beam angle optimization (BAO) with preselected beam angle orientation (PSBO) in brain tumour patients. Materials and Methods: Present study was conducted in the department of Radiation Oncology. Twenty patients of brain tumour planned by PSBO were randomly selected. A new plan was created for each patient with BAO method. Dosimetric parameters of PTV (V95%, Dmax, Dmean, D2, D50, D98, HI, CI, and MUs) and OAR (brainstem, eyes, lenses, optic nerves, cochleae, hippocampi, and normal brain tissue) were compared. Results: The dosimetric parameters of PTV in PSBO and BAO plans are almost similar and none of the parameters have shown a statistically significant difference. There was a difference of >1Gy in various OARs like brainstem Dmax, optic nerves Dmax, lenses Dmax, Dmin Dmax of right hippocampus and left hippocampus Dmin, though it was not statistically significant. Rest of the OARs like, both eyes, cochleae and normal brain had a difference of <1Gy and not statistically significant. Conclusion: Dosimetric parameters of PSBO patient planning method are equivalent to BAO method. PSBO may be more useful since it is an individualized planning and may further utilise less time with growing experience of the medical physicist.
Files
IJPCR,Vol15,Issue5,Article290.pdf
Files
(383.6 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:1f74463c9bc365cf38ad35cad24b6584
|
383.6 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Dates
- Accepted
-
2023-04-30
Software
- Repository URL
- https://impactfactor.org/PDF/IJPCR/15/IJPCR,Vol15,Issue5,Article290.pdf
- Development Status
- Active
References
- 1. Bentzen SM, Constine LS, Deasy JO, Eisbruch A, Jackson A, Marks LB, Ten Haken RK, Yorke ED. Quantitative Analyses of Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (QUANTEC): an introduction to the scientific issues. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Mar 1;76(3 Suppl): S3-9. 2. Paddick I. A simple scoring ratio to index the conformity of radio surgical treatment plans. Technicalnote. J Neurosurg. 2000 Dec; 93 Suppl 3:219- 22. 3. Hodapp N. The ICRU Report 83: prescribing, recording and reporting photon-beam intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Strahlenther Onkol Organ DtschRöntgenges Al. 2012 Jan 1; 188:97–9. 4. Ventura, Tiago & Lopes, Maria do Carmo & Rocha, Humberto & Ferreira, Brigida & Matos Dias, Joana. Advantage of Beam Angle Optimization in Head-and-Neck IMRT: Patient Specific Analysis. 2019; 10.1007/978-3-030-31635-8_153. 5. Shukla AK, Kumar S, Sandhu IS, Oinam AS, Singh R, Kapoor R. Dosimetric study of beam angle optimization in intensity-modulated radiation therapy planning. J Cancer Res Ther. 2016 Apr-Jun;12(2):1045-9. 6. Wang X, Zhang X, Dong L, Liu H, Gillin M, Ahamad A, Ang K, Mohan R. Effectiveness of noncoplanar IMRT planning using a parallelized multiresolution beam angle optimization method for paranasalsinus carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Oct 1;63(2):594-601. 7. Llacer J, Li S, Agazaryan N, Promberger C, Solberg TD. Noncoplanar automatic beam orientation selection in cranial IMRT: a practical methodology. Phys Med Biol. 2009 Mar 7;54(5):1337-68. 8. Liu HH,Jauregui M, Zhang X, Wang X, Dong L, Mohan R. Beam angle optimization and reduction for intensity-modulated radiation therapy of non-small-cell lung cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Jun 1;65(2):561-72. 9. Leung WS, Wu VWC, Liu CYW, Cheng ACK. A dosimetric comparison of the use of equally spaced beam (ESB), beam angle optimization (BAO), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in head and neck cancers treated by intensity modulated radiotherapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019 Nov;20(11):121-130. 10. Anjana AK, Silambarasan NS, Nigam J, Navitha S, Kumar P. Dosimetric comparison of pre-selected beam orientation and beam angle optimization in Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy plans for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma. International Journal of Scientific Research. December – 2022; 11(12). 11. Srivastava SP, Das IJ, Kumar A, Johnstone PA. Dosimetric comparisonof manual and beam angle optimization of gantry angles in IMRT. Med Dosim. 2011 Autumn;36(3):313-6. 12. P. Carrasqueira, M. J. Alves, J. M. Dias, H. Rocha, T. Ventura, B. C. Ferreira, M. C. Lopes. An automated bi-level optimization approach for IMRT. Intl. Trans. in Op. Res.2023;30: 224–238 13. Bangert M, Oelfke U. Spherical cluster analysis for beam angle optimization in intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment planning. Phys Med Biol. 2010 Oct 7;55(19):6023-37.