ArticleArXiv2024
Development and experimental validation of an in-house treatment planning system with greedy energy layer optimization for fast IMPT.
Article in ArXiv, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) using pencil beam technique scans tumor in a layer by layer, then spot by spot manner. It can provide highly conformal dose to tumor targets and spare nearby organs-at-risk (OAR). Fast delivery of IMPT can improve patient comfort and reduce motion-induced uncertainties. Since energy layer switching time dominants the plan delivery time, reducing the number of energy layers is important for improving delivery efficiency. Although various energy layer optimization (ELO) methods exist, they are rarely experimentally validated or clinically implemented, since it is technically challenging to integrate these methods into commercially available treatment planning system (TPS) that is not open-source. Purpose: This work develops and experimentally validates an in-house TPS (IH-TPS) that incorporates a novel ELO method for the purpose of fast IMPT. Methods: The dose calculation accuracy of IH-TPS is verified against the measured beam data and the RayStation TPS. For treatment planning, a novel ELO method via greed selection algorithm is proposed to reduce energy layer switching time and total plan delivery time. To validate the planning accuracy of IH-TPS, the 3D gamma index is calculated between IH-TPS plans and RayStation plans for various scenarios. Patient-specific quality-assurance (QA) verifications are conducted to experimentally verify the delivered dose from the IH-TPS plans for several clinical cases. Results: Dose distributions in IH-TPS matched with those from RayStation TPS, with 3D gamma index results exceeding 95% (2mm, 2%). The ELO method significantly reduced the delivery time while maintaining plan quality. For instance, in a brain case, the number of energy layers was reduced from 78 to 40, leading to a 62% reduction in total delivery time. Patient-specific QA validation with the IBA Proteus Conclusions: An IH-TPS equipped with a novel ELO algorithm is developed and experimentally validated for the purpose of fast IMPT, with enhanced delivery efficiency and preserved plan quality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39650605PMC11623709What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.