Comparative planning of flattening-filter-free and flat beam IMRT for hypopharynx cancer as a function of beam and segment number.

Although highly conformal dose distributions can be achieved by IMRT planning, this often requires a large number of segments or beams, resulting in increased treatment times. While flattening-filter-free beams offer a higher dose rate, even more segments may be required to create homogeneous target...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Yvonne Dzierma, Frank G Nuesken, Jochen Fleckenstein, Patrick Melchior, Norbert P Licht, Christian Rübe
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2014-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3983129?pdf=render
_version_ 1811262448307535872
author Yvonne Dzierma
Frank G Nuesken
Jochen Fleckenstein
Patrick Melchior
Norbert P Licht
Christian Rübe
author_facet Yvonne Dzierma
Frank G Nuesken
Jochen Fleckenstein
Patrick Melchior
Norbert P Licht
Christian Rübe
author_sort Yvonne Dzierma
collection DOAJ
description Although highly conformal dose distributions can be achieved by IMRT planning, this often requires a large number of segments or beams, resulting in increased treatment times. While flattening-filter-free beams offer a higher dose rate, even more segments may be required to create homogeneous target coverage. Therefore, it is worthwhile to systematically investigate the dependence of plan quality on gantry angles and number of segments for flat vs. FFF beams in IMRT planning. For the practical example of hypopharynx cancer, we present a planning study of flat vs. FFF beams using three different configurations of gantry angles and different segment numbers. The two beams are very similar in physical properties, and are hence well-suited for comparative planning. Starting with a set of plans of equal quality for flat and FFF beams, we assess how far the number of segments can be reduced before the plan quality is markedly compromised, and compare monitor units and treatment times for the resulting plans. As long as a sufficiently large number of segments is permitted, all planning scenarios give good results, independently of gantry angles and flat or FFF beams. For smaller numbers of segments, plan quality decreases both for flat and FFF energies; this effect is stronger for fewer gantry angles and for FFF beams. For low segment numbers, FFF plans are generally worse than the corresponding flat beam plans, but they are less sensitive to a decrease in segment number if many gantry angles are used (18 beams); in this case the quality of flat and FFF plans remains comparable even for few segments.
first_indexed 2024-04-12T19:25:30Z
format Article
id doaj.art-c1fff9377e8d4e3f8d1710791f454076
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1932-6203
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-12T19:25:30Z
publishDate 2014-01-01
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
record_format Article
series PLoS ONE
spelling doaj.art-c1fff9377e8d4e3f8d1710791f4540762022-12-22T03:19:30ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032014-01-0194e9437110.1371/journal.pone.0094371Comparative planning of flattening-filter-free and flat beam IMRT for hypopharynx cancer as a function of beam and segment number.Yvonne DziermaFrank G NueskenJochen FleckensteinPatrick MelchiorNorbert P LichtChristian RübeAlthough highly conformal dose distributions can be achieved by IMRT planning, this often requires a large number of segments or beams, resulting in increased treatment times. While flattening-filter-free beams offer a higher dose rate, even more segments may be required to create homogeneous target coverage. Therefore, it is worthwhile to systematically investigate the dependence of plan quality on gantry angles and number of segments for flat vs. FFF beams in IMRT planning. For the practical example of hypopharynx cancer, we present a planning study of flat vs. FFF beams using three different configurations of gantry angles and different segment numbers. The two beams are very similar in physical properties, and are hence well-suited for comparative planning. Starting with a set of plans of equal quality for flat and FFF beams, we assess how far the number of segments can be reduced before the plan quality is markedly compromised, and compare monitor units and treatment times for the resulting plans. As long as a sufficiently large number of segments is permitted, all planning scenarios give good results, independently of gantry angles and flat or FFF beams. For smaller numbers of segments, plan quality decreases both for flat and FFF energies; this effect is stronger for fewer gantry angles and for FFF beams. For low segment numbers, FFF plans are generally worse than the corresponding flat beam plans, but they are less sensitive to a decrease in segment number if many gantry angles are used (18 beams); in this case the quality of flat and FFF plans remains comparable even for few segments.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3983129?pdf=render
spellingShingle Yvonne Dzierma
Frank G Nuesken
Jochen Fleckenstein
Patrick Melchior
Norbert P Licht
Christian Rübe
Comparative planning of flattening-filter-free and flat beam IMRT for hypopharynx cancer as a function of beam and segment number.
PLoS ONE
title Comparative planning of flattening-filter-free and flat beam IMRT for hypopharynx cancer as a function of beam and segment number.
title_full Comparative planning of flattening-filter-free and flat beam IMRT for hypopharynx cancer as a function of beam and segment number.
title_fullStr Comparative planning of flattening-filter-free and flat beam IMRT for hypopharynx cancer as a function of beam and segment number.
title_full_unstemmed Comparative planning of flattening-filter-free and flat beam IMRT for hypopharynx cancer as a function of beam and segment number.
title_short Comparative planning of flattening-filter-free and flat beam IMRT for hypopharynx cancer as a function of beam and segment number.
title_sort comparative planning of flattening filter free and flat beam imrt for hypopharynx cancer as a function of beam and segment number
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3983129?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT yvonnedzierma comparativeplanningofflatteningfilterfreeandflatbeamimrtforhypopharynxcancerasafunctionofbeamandsegmentnumber
AT frankgnuesken comparativeplanningofflatteningfilterfreeandflatbeamimrtforhypopharynxcancerasafunctionofbeamandsegmentnumber
AT jochenfleckenstein comparativeplanningofflatteningfilterfreeandflatbeamimrtforhypopharynxcancerasafunctionofbeamandsegmentnumber
AT patrickmelchior comparativeplanningofflatteningfilterfreeandflatbeamimrtforhypopharynxcancerasafunctionofbeamandsegmentnumber
AT norbertplicht comparativeplanningofflatteningfilterfreeandflatbeamimrtforhypopharynxcancerasafunctionofbeamandsegmentnumber
AT christianrube comparativeplanningofflatteningfilterfreeandflatbeamimrtforhypopharynxcancerasafunctionofbeamandsegmentnumber