Improving IMRT delivery efficiency using intensity limits during inverse planning.

Inverse planned intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) fields can be highly modulated due to the large number of degrees of freedom involved in the inverse planning process. Additional modulation typically results in a more optimal plan, although the clinical rewards may be small or offset by additional delivery complexity and/or increased dose from transmission and leakage. Increasing modulation decreases delivery efficiency, and may lead to plans that are more sensitive to geometrical uncertainties. The purpose of this work is to assess the use of maximum intensity limits in inverse IMRT planning as a simple way to increase delivery efficiency without significantly affecting plan quality. Nine clinical cases (three each for brain, prostate, and head/neck) were used to evaluate advantages and disadvantages of limiting maximum intensity to increase delivery efficiency. IMRT plans were generated using in-house protocol-based constraints and objectives for the brain and head/neck, and RTOG 9406 dose volume objectives in the prostate. Each case was optimized at a series of maximum intensity ratios (the product of the maximum intensity and the number of beams divided by the prescribed dose to the target volume), and evaluated in terms of clinical metrics, dose-volume histograms, monitor units (MU) required per fraction (SMLC and DMLC delivery), and intensity map variation (a measure of the beam modulation). In each site tested, it was possible to reduce total monitor units by constraining the maximum allowed intensity without compromising the clinical acceptability of the plan. Monitor unit reductions up to 38% were observed for SMLC delivery, while reductions up to 29% were achieved for DMLC delivery. In general, complicated geometries saw a smaller reduction in monitor units for both delivery types, although DMLC delivery required significantly more monitor units in all cases. Constraining the maximum intensity in an inverse IMRT plan is a simple way to improve delivery efficiency without compromising plan objectives.

[1]  Naichang Yu,et al.  Effects of the intensity levels and beam map resolutions on static IMRT plans. , 2004, Medical physics.

[2]  E. Hall,et al.  Radiation-induced second cancers: the impact of 3D-CRT and IMRT. , 2003, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[3]  M. Kaplan,et al.  Comparison of treatment plans using intensity-modulated radiotherapy and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for paranasal sinus carcinoma. , 2003, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[4]  Radhe Mohan,et al.  Incorporating multi-leaf collimator leaf sequencing into iterative IMRT optimization. , 2002, Medical physics.

[5]  M. Alber,et al.  Optimization of intensity modulated radiotherapy under constraints for static and dynamic MLC delivery. , 2001, Physics in medicine and biology.

[6]  T. Bortfeld,et al.  X-ray field compensation with multileaf collimators. , 1994, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[7]  Lambert Zijp,et al.  Reduction of cardiac and lung complication probabilities after breast irradiation using conformal radiotherapy with or without intensity modulation. , 2002, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[8]  R Mohan,et al.  The impact of fluctuations in intensity patterns on the number of monitor units and the quality and accuracy of intensity modulated radiotherapy. , 2000, Medical physics.

[9]  F. Lohr,et al.  Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy with conventional conformal radiotherapy for complex-shaped tumors. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[10]  J. Deasy,et al.  Beyond bixels: generalizing the optimization parameters for intensity modulated radiation therapy. , 2002, Medical physics.

[11]  S Webb,et al.  An optimization algorithm that incorporates IMRT delivery constraints. , 2002, Physics in medicine and biology.

[12]  Thomas Guerrero,et al.  Dose and volume reduction for normal lung using intensity-modulated radiotherapy for advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. , 2004, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[13]  Benedick A Fraass,et al.  Incorporation of realistic delivery limitations into dynamic MLC treatment delivery. , 2002, Medical physics.

[14]  J. V. van Santvoort,et al.  Dynamic multileaf collimation without 'tongue-and-groove' underdosage effects. , 1996, Physics in medicine and biology.

[15]  W Schlegel,et al.  Dynamic X-ray compensation for conformal radiotherapy by means of multi-leaf collimation. , 1994, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[16]  P. Teo,et al.  Intensity-modulated radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: dosimetric advantage over conventional plans and feasibility of dose escalation. , 2003, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[17]  L Xing,et al.  Minimizing delivery time and monitor units in static IMRT by leaf-sequencing. , 2002, Physics in medicine and biology.

[18]  J Yang,et al.  Smoothing intensity-modulated beam profiles to improve the efficiency of delivery. , 2001, Medical physics.

[19]  Randall K Ten Haken,et al.  Daily prostate targeting using implanted radiopaque markers. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[20]  C. Ling,et al.  Intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus conventional three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for boost or salvage treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[21]  A. Markoe,et al.  Preliminary report of toxicity following 3D radiation therapy for prostate cancer on 3DOG/RTOG 9406. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[22]  Gary Luxton,et al.  Dosimetry and radiobiologic model comparison of IMRT and 3D conformal radiotherapy in treatment of carcinoma of the prostate. , 2004, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[23]  Lijun Ma,et al.  Smoothing intensity-modulated treatment delivery under hardware constraints. , 2002, Medical physics.

[24]  M. Langer,et al.  Improved leaf sequencing reduces segments or monitor units needed to deliver IMRT using multileaf collimators. , 2001, Medical physics.

[25]  S. Webb,et al.  Segmentation of IMRT plans for radical lung radiotherapy delivery with the step-and-shoot technique. , 2004, Medical physics.

[26]  I. Rosen,et al.  Implementing IMRT in clinical practice: a joint document of the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. , 2004, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[27]  Ping Xia,et al.  A new smoothing procedure to reduce delivery segments for static MLC-based IMRT planning. , 2004, Medical physics.

[28]  Marina A. Epelman,et al.  Costlets: A Generalized Approach to Cost Functions for Automated Optimization of IMRT Treatment Plans , 2005 .

[29]  D L McShan,et al.  Full integration of the beam's eye view concept into computerized treatment planning. , 1990, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[30]  J. Sham,et al.  Target dose conformity in 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity modulated radiotherapy. , 2004, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[31]  Nesrin Dogan,et al.  Assessment of different IMRT boost delivery methods on target coverage and normal-tissue sparing. , 2003, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[32]  A W Beavis,et al.  Optimization of the step-and-shoot leaf sequence for delivery of intensity modulated radiation therapy using a variable division scheme. , 2001, Physics in medicine and biology.

[33]  J. V. van Santvoort,et al.  Leaf trajectory calculation for dynamic multileaf collimation to realize optimized fluence profiles. , 1998, Physics in Medicine and Biology.

[34]  C. Ling,et al.  Physical and dosimetric aspects of a multileaf collimation system used in the dynamic mode for implementing intensity modulated radiotherapy. , 1998, Medical physics.

[35]  R Svensson,et al.  An analytical solution for the dynamic control of multileaf collimators. , 1994, Physics in medicine and biology.

[36]  Lei Xing,et al.  Incorporating leaf transmission and head scatter corrections into step-and-shoot leaf sequences for IMRT. , 2003, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[37]  J. Battista,et al.  A convolution method of calculating dose for 15-MV x rays. , 1985, Medical physics.

[38]  P S Cho,et al.  Hardware-sensitive optimization for intensity modulated radiotherapy. , 2000, Physics in medicine and biology.

[39]  S. Webb,et al.  Inverse planning with constraints to generate smoothed intensity-modulated beams. , 1998, Physics in medicine and biology.

[40]  S. Spirou,et al.  Generation of arbitrary intensity profiles by dynamic jaws or multileaf collimators. , 1994, Medical physics.

[41]  Ping Xia,et al.  The effect of beam energy and number of fields on photon-based IMRT for deep-seated targets. , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.