Purpose: To assess the performance of a new optimization system, VOLO, for CyberKnife MLC-based SBRT plans in comparison with the existing Sequential optimizer. Methods: MLC-plans were created for 25 SBRT cases (liver, prostate, pancreas and spine) using both VOLO and Sequential. Monitor units (MU), delivery time (DT), PTV coverage, conformity (nCI), dose gradient (R50%) and OAR doses were used for comparison and combined to obtain a mathematical score (MS) of plan quality for each solution. MS strength was validated by changing parameter weights and by a blinded clinical plan evaluation. The optimization times (OT) and the average segment areas (SA) were also compared. Results: VOLO solutions offered significantly lower mean DT (−19%) and MU (−13%). OT were below 15 min for VOLO, whereas for Sequential, values spanned from 8 to 160 min. SAs were significantly larger for VOLO: on average 10 cm2 versus 7 cm2. VOLO optimized plans achieved a higher MS than Sequential for all tested parameter combinations. PTV coverage and OAR sparing were comparable for both groups of solutions. Although slight differences in R50% and nCI were found, the parameters most affecting MS were MU and DT. VOLO solutions were selected in 80% of cases by both physicians with 88% inter-observer agreement. Conclusions: The good performance of the VOLO optimization system, together with the large reduction in OT, make it a useful tool to improve the efficiency of CK SBRT planning and delivery. The proposed methodology for comparing different planning solutions can be applied in other contexts.

Performance assessment of a new optimization system for robotic SBRT MLC-based plans / Calusi S.; Doro R.; Di Cataldo V.; Cipressi S.; Francolini G.; Bonucci I.; Livi L.; Masi L.. - In: PHYSICA MEDICA. - ISSN 1120-1797. - ELETTRONICO. - 71:(2020), pp. 31-38. [10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.02.009]

Performance assessment of a new optimization system for robotic SBRT MLC-based plans

Calusi S.
;
Cipressi S.;
2020

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the performance of a new optimization system, VOLO, for CyberKnife MLC-based SBRT plans in comparison with the existing Sequential optimizer. Methods: MLC-plans were created for 25 SBRT cases (liver, prostate, pancreas and spine) using both VOLO and Sequential. Monitor units (MU), delivery time (DT), PTV coverage, conformity (nCI), dose gradient (R50%) and OAR doses were used for comparison and combined to obtain a mathematical score (MS) of plan quality for each solution. MS strength was validated by changing parameter weights and by a blinded clinical plan evaluation. The optimization times (OT) and the average segment areas (SA) were also compared. Results: VOLO solutions offered significantly lower mean DT (−19%) and MU (−13%). OT were below 15 min for VOLO, whereas for Sequential, values spanned from 8 to 160 min. SAs were significantly larger for VOLO: on average 10 cm2 versus 7 cm2. VOLO optimized plans achieved a higher MS than Sequential for all tested parameter combinations. PTV coverage and OAR sparing were comparable for both groups of solutions. Although slight differences in R50% and nCI were found, the parameters most affecting MS were MU and DT. VOLO solutions were selected in 80% of cases by both physicians with 88% inter-observer agreement. Conclusions: The good performance of the VOLO optimization system, together with the large reduction in OT, make it a useful tool to improve the efficiency of CK SBRT planning and delivery. The proposed methodology for comparing different planning solutions can be applied in other contexts.
2020
71
31
38
Calusi S.; Doro R.; Di Cataldo V.; Cipressi S.; Francolini G.; Bonucci I.; Livi L.; Masi L.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
1-s2.0-S1120179720300405-main.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Pdf editoriale (Version of record)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 625.36 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
625.36 kB Adobe PDF

I documenti in FLORE sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificatore per citare o creare un link a questa risorsa: https://hdl.handle.net/2158/1189682
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 14
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 15
social impact