BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
British Journal of Radiology (2005) 78, 316-327
© 2005 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/13015047
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Meyer, J
Right arrow Articles by Phillips, M H
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Meyer, J
Right arrow Articles by Phillips, M H

Automatic selection of non-coplanar beam directions for three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy

J Meyer, PhD1,2, S M Hummel, RT(T), CMD1, P S Cho, PhD1, M M Austin-Seymour, MD1 and M H Phillips, PhD1

1 University of Washington Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Box 356043, Seattle, WA 98195, USA and 2 Universität Würzburg, Klinik für Strahlentherapie, Josef-Schneider-Str. 11, D-97080 Würzburg, Germany



View larger version (37K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. The area that is unshaded denotes the permitted beam space {Phi}P({xi},{psi}). The shaded region represents angles that result in a gantry collision and are, therefore, excluded from the beam search.

 


View larger version (26K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. Ray-tracing geometry: (a) beam's-eye-view (BEV) illustrating the grid with uniform spacing s and (b) axial slice with planning target volume (PTV) and two organs at risk (OAR).

 


View larger version (15K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 3. Test plan. (a) Axial slice and (b) lateral view (from left side).

 


View larger version (108K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 4. Brain case: axial CT slice through a paediatric meningioma.

 


View larger version (97K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 5. Sinus case: coronal CT slice through tumour.

 


View larger version (15K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 6. Cost as a function of (a) the ray-tracing resolution, s, and (b) as a function of the angle resolution, {varpi}, for the test case in Figure 3Go.

 


View larger version (13K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 7. Cost function vs gantry-angle plot for prostate: (a) Graph reproduced from Rowbottom et al [13]. (b) Normalized cost corresponding to prostate case. The vertical lines indicate the selected gantry angles. Note that different cost functions were used and therefore the overall magnitude of the graphs is not comparable.

 


View larger version (56K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 8. Normalized cost distribution over the beam space {Phi}P({xi},{psi}). A circle corresponds to the conventional and a diamond to the optimized plan. The grey-scale bar represents the cost values. (a) Brain case and (b) sinus case.

 


View larger version (12K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 9. Brain case: dose–volume histograms for the conventional plan (dashed) and the optimized plan (solid): (a) planning target volume (PTV) and (b) optic nerves. The vertical lines in (a) denote the ±5% dose range.

 


View larger version (27K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 10. Sinus case: dose–volume histogram for the conventional plan (dashed) and the optimized plan (solid): (a) planning target volume (PTV) and brain stem, (b) parotid glands, (c) optic nerves and (d) optic chiasm. The vertical lines in (a) denote the ±5% dose range.

 




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2005 by the British Institute of Radiology.