1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Impact of leaf motion constraints on IMAT plan quality, deliver accuracy, and efficiency
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1118/1.3651698
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/38/11/10.1118/1.3651698
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/38/11/10.1118/1.3651698

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Effect of the control point interpolation (fine angle interval) on dose calculation for a Head-and-Neck case with gantry angle interval of 10° (medium solid), 2° (thin solid), and 1° (thin dashed). The leaf motion constraint is 10 mm/deg.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

(Prostate only) (a): An axial view of the dose distribution of the optimized IMAT plan with a 5 mm/deg leaf motion constraint. The isodose lines are 104%, 100%, 95%, 67%, and 44% of the prescribed dose. (b): DVH comparison between the optimized IMAT plans with leaf motion constraints of 1 (thin solid), 5 (medium dashed), and 20 mm/deg (medium solid).

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

(Prostate only case) Variation of plan quality with leaf motion constraints. (a) PTV standard deviation (std) per fraction and (b) Rectum mean dose.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

(Prostate only case) DVH comparison between the optimized (solid) and the fine-angle (dashed) plan with 2 mm/deg (a) and 20 mm/deg (b) leaf motion constraint. (c) PTV standard deviation difference between the optimized and the fine-angle plans, and (d) mean dose differences for PTV (Square), Bladder (Triangle), and Rectum (Diamond).

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

(Pancreas case) An axial view of the two dimensional dose distributions (a) and the DVHs (b) of the optimized IMAT plans with leaf motion constraint of 1 mm/deg (thin solid), 5 mm/deg (medium dashed), and 20 mm/deg (medium solid). The isodose lines are 104%, 100%, 95%, 57%, and 43%.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

(Pancreas case) The variation of plan quality: (a) PTV standard derivation (std) per fraction and (b) Maximum spinal cord dose. Variation of dose calculation accuracy: (c) PTV mean and (d) Maximum spinal cord dose difference between the optimized and fine-angle IMAT plans.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

(Head-and-neck case#1) Two dimensional dose distribution on a sagittal plane (a) and DVH variation (B) of optimized plans with the leaf motion constraints of 2 (thin solid), 5 (medium dashed), and 20 mm/deg (medium solid).

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

(Head-and-neck case#1) DVH comparison between the optimized (solid line) and fine-angle (dashed line) plans for 2 mm/deg (a) and 20 mm/deg (b).

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

(Head-and-neck case#1) Variation of Plan quality: (a) Averaged PTV standard deviation (std) and (b) spinal cord maximum dose. Variation of dose calculation accuracy: (c) averaged PTV standard deviation and (d) maximum dose to cord difference between the optimized and the fine-angle plans.

Image of FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

(Head-and-neck case#2) DVH discrepancies between the optimized and the fine-angle plans as function of leaf motion constraints. (a) Averaged PTV standard deviation, spinal cord, and brain stem maximum dose, and (b) averaged PTV, right Parotid and pharyngeal constrictor mean doses.

Image of FIG. 11.
FIG. 11.

Gamma analysis of IMAT plans for the first head-and-neck case. (a) Optimized plan with 2 mm/deg leaf motion constraint, (b) fine angle plan with 2 mm/deg leaf motion constraints; (c) optimized plan with 20 mm/deg, and (d) fine angle plan with 20 mm/deg leaf motion constraint. The gamma analysis passing criteria were 3%/3 mm.

Image of FIG. 12.
FIG. 12.

Gamma passing rates of optimized (a) and fine angle VMAT plans (b) as function of leaf motion constraints. The passing criteria were 3mm/3%.

Image of FIG. 13.
FIG. 13.

Deliver time (seconds) as function of leaf motion constraint for the fives cases studied.

Image of FIG. 14.
FIG. 14.

Overview of plan discrepancies between optimized and fine-angle plans (represented by PTV standard deviation difference in cGy/fraction), delivery accuracy (Gamma passing rate) and delivery efficiency (delivery time) as function of leaf motion constraints for a prostate (a), a pancreas (b) and a head-and-neck case (c).

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

DVH Statistics of the optimized and the fine-angle IMAT plans (prostate only).

Generic image for table
TABLE II.

(Prostate + seminal vesicle case) Statistics of optimized (left) and the fine angle (right) IMAT plans.

Generic image for table
TABLE III.

(Pancreas case) Statistics of optimized and the fine angle plans.

Generic image for table
TABLE IV.

(Head-and-neck #1) DVH statistics of the optimized and the fine angle plans.

Generic image for table
TABLE V.

(Head-&-Neck #2) Statistics of the optimized (upper) and the fine-angle (lower) plans.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/38/11/10.1118/1.3651698
2011-10-21
2014-04-21
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Impact of leaf motion constraints on IMAT plan quality, deliver accuracy, and efficiency
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/38/11/10.1118/1.3651698
10.1118/1.3651698
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM