Comparison of two beam angular optimization algorithms guided by automated multicriterial IMRT.

Clicks: 378
ID: 45271
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #8 of 25 articles by views in Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics (AIFB)

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
To compare two beam angle optimization (BAO) algorithms for coplanar and non-coplanar geometries in a multicriterial optimization framework.40 nasopharynx patients were selected for this retrospective planning study. IMRT optimized plans were produced by Erasmus-iCycle multicriterial optimization platform. Two different algorithms, based on a discrete and on a continuous exploration of the space search, algorithm i and B respectively, were used to address BAO. Plan quality evaluation and comparison were performed with SPIDERplan. Statistically significant differences between the plans were also assessed.For plans using only coplanar incidences, the optimized beam distribution with algorithm i is more asymmetric than with algorithm B. For non-coplanar beam optimization, larger deviations from coplanarity were obtained with algorithm i than with algorithm B. Globally, both algorithms presented near equivalent plan quality scores, with algorithm B presenting a marginally better performance than algorithm i.Almost all plans presented high quality, profiting from multicriterial and beam angular optimization. Although there were not significant differences when average results over the entire sample were considered, a case-by-case analysis revealed important differences for some patients.
Reference Key
ventura2019comparisonphysica Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Ventura, Tiago;Rocha, Humberto;da Costa Ferreira, Brigida;Dias, Joana;Lopes, Maria do Carmo;
Journal Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics (AIFB)
Year 2019
DOI
S1120-1797(19)30165-6
URL
Keywords
beam angular optimization multicriteria optimization plan quality assessment

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.