| Popis: |
Purpose: To introduce multiobjective, multidelivery optimization (MODO), which generates alternative patient-specific plans emphasizing dosimetric trade-offs and conformance to quasi-constrained (QC) conditions for multiple delivery techniques. Methods and Materials: For M delivery techniques and N organs at risk (OARs), MODO generates M (N + 1) alternative treatment plans per patient. For 30 locally advanced lung cancer cases, the algorithm was investigated based on dosimetric trade-offs to 4 OARs: each lung, heart, and esophagus (N = 4) and 4 delivery techniques (4-field coplanar intensity modulated radiation therapy [IMRT], 9-field coplanar IMRT, 27-field noncoplanar IMRT, and noncoplanar arc IMRT) and conformance to QC conditions, including dose to 95% (D95) of the planning target volume (PTV), maximum dose (Dmax) to PTV (PTV-Dmax), and spinal cord Dmax. The MODO plan set was evaluated for conformance to QC conditions while simultaneously revealing dosimetric trade-offs. Statistically significant dosimetric trade-offs were defined such that the coefficient of determination was >0.8 with dosimetric indices that varied by at least 5 Gy. Results: Plans varied mean dose by >5 Gy to ipsilateral lung for 24 of 30 patients, contralateral lung for 29 of 30 patients, esophagus for 29 of 30 patients, and heart for 19 of 30 patients. In the 600 plans, average PTV-D95 = 67.6 ± 2.1 Gy, PTV-Dmax = 79.8 ± 5.2 Gy, and spinal cord Dmax among all plans was 51.4 Gy. Statistically significant dosimetric trade-offs reducing OAR mean dose by >5 Gy were evident in 19 of 30 patients, including multiple OAR trade-offs of at least 5 Gy in 7 of 30 cases. The most common statistically significant trade-off was increasing PTV-Dmax to reduce dose to OARs (15 of 30). The average 4-field plan reduced total lung V20 by 10.4% ± 8.3% compared with 9-field plans, 7.7% ± 7.9% compared with 27-field noncoplanar plans, and 11.7% ± 10.3% compared with 2-arc noncoplanar plans, with corresponding increases in PTV-Dmax of 5.3 ± 5.9 Gy, 4.6 ± 5.6 Gy, and 9.3 ± 7.3 Gy. Conclusions: The proposed optimization method produces clinically relevant treatment plans that meet QC conditions and demonstrate variations in OAR doses. |
