Click here to


Are you sure ?

Yes, do it No, cancel

Performance Evaluation Among Different Optimization Algorithms for Prostate IMRT and VMAT Planning

J Chung1 , S Kang1*, J Kim1 , S Kang2 , K Kim2 , K Eom1 , C Song1 , T Suh2 , (1) Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Kyeonggi-do, (2)The catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Seoul, Seoul


(Sunday, 7/29/2018) 3:00 PM - 6:00 PM

Room: Exhibit Hall

Purpose: To compare the performance of a new PO algorithm which released for clinical usage with previously being used DVO and PRO for prostate IMRT and VMAT.

Methods: Twenty patients with prostate cancer were selected for this retrospective study. 80 plans were generated using the Eclipse treatment planning system to compare PO versus DVO and PO versus PRO for IMRT and VMAT, respectively. All plans were used with two full arcs and 10 MV beams modulated by high definition 120 MLC on a TrueBeam accelerator. Plans using different optimization algorithms for both delivery techniques were evaluated mutually by dosimetric and radiobiological parameters as well as technical aspects

Results: With analysis to HI, CI, and CN, all plans optimized with DVO and PRO have lower quality than those optimized with PO. TCP values for both delivery techniques indicated more in the plan optimized with PO than DVO/PRO, whereas NTCP values were very small in plans optimized with other optimization algorithms for most OARs excepted rectum. Only NTCP values of rectum were observed remarkable higher difference. Also, PO for IMRT technique showed total MUs reduction in compared to DVO. On the other hand, total MUs for VMAT were higher with PO than PRO. In addition, the PO could optimize plans 20-30% faster than DVO/PRO.

Conclusion: The plan quality was generally improved with PO, although not for all parameters, some of the estimated parameters showed a macroscopic improvement with PO than DVO and PRO. However, differences for radiobiological parameters were not observed for any optimization algorithm. But the PO was the best solution in technical aspects with the shorten amount of optimization time, although it was increased MUs in IMRT than DVO. Our study found that PO shows over potential of DVO and PRO for prostate IMRT and VMAT.


Not Applicable / None Entered.


Not Applicable / None Entered.

Contact Email