On the beam direction search space in computerized non-coplanar beam angle optimization for IMRT-prostate SBRT

In a recent paper, we have published a new algorithm, designated 'iCycle', for fully automated multi-criterial optimization of beam angles and intensity profiles. In this study, we have used this algorithm to investigate the relationship between plan quality and the extent of the beam dire...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inPhysics in medicine & biology Vol. 57; no. 17; pp. 5441 - 5458
Main Authors Rossi, Linda, Breedveld, Sebastiaan, Heijmen, Ben J M, Voet, Peter W J, Lanconelli, Nico, Aluwini, Shafak
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England IOP Publishing 07.09.2012
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN0031-9155
1361-6560
1361-6560
DOI10.1088/0031-9155/57/17/5441

Cover

Abstract In a recent paper, we have published a new algorithm, designated 'iCycle', for fully automated multi-criterial optimization of beam angles and intensity profiles. In this study, we have used this algorithm to investigate the relationship between plan quality and the extent of the beam direction search space, i.e. the set of candidate beam directions that may be selected for generating an optimal plan. For a group of ten prostate cancer patients, optimal IMRT plans were made for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), mimicking high dose rate brachytherapy dosimetry. Plans were generated for five different beam direction input sets: a coplanar (CP) set and four non-coplanar (NCP) sets. For CP treatments, the search space consisted of 72 orientations (5° separations). The NCP CyberKnife (CK) space contained all directions available in the robotic CK treatment unit. The fully non-coplanar (F-NCP) set facilitated the highest possible degree of freedom in selecting optimal directions. CK+ and CK++ were subsets of F-NCP to investigate some aspects of the CK space. For each input set, plans were generated with up to 30 selected beam directions. Generated plans were clinically acceptable, according to an assessment of our clinicians. Convergence in plan quality occurred only after around 20 included beams. For individual patients, variations in PTV dose delivery between the five generated plans were minimal, as aimed for (average spread in V95: 0.4%). This allowed plan comparisons based on organ at risk (OAR) doses, with the rectum considered most important. Plans generated with the NCP search spaces had improved OAR sparing compared to the CP search space, especially for the rectum. OAR sparing was best with the F-NCP, with reductions in rectum DMean, V40Gy, V60Gy and D2% compared to CP of 25%, 35%, 37% and 8%, respectively. Reduced rectum sparing with the CK search space compared to F-NCP could be largely compensated by expanding CK with beams with relatively large direction components along the superior-inferior axis (CK++). Addition of posterior beams (CK++ → F-NCP) did not lead to further improvements in OAR sparing. Plans with 25 beams clearly performed better than 11-beam plans. For CP plans, an increase from 11 to 25 involved beams resulted in reductions in rectum DMean, V40Gy, V60Gy and D2% of 39%, 57%, 64% and 13%, respectively.
AbstractList In a recent paper, we have published a new algorithm, designated 'iCycle', for fully automated multi-criterial optimization of beam angles and intensity profiles. In this study, we have used this algorithm to investigate the relationship between plan quality and the extent of the beam direction search space, i.e. the set of candidate beam directions that may be selected for generating an optimal plan. For a group of ten prostate cancer patients, optimal IMRT plans were made for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), mimicking high dose rate brachytherapy dosimetry. Plans were generated for five different beam direction input sets: a coplanar (CP) set and four non-coplanar (NCP) sets. For CP treatments, the search space consisted of 72 orientations (5° separations). The NCP CyberKnife (CK) space contained all directions available in the robotic CK treatment unit. The fully non-coplanar (F-NCP) set facilitated the highest possible degree of freedom in selecting optimal directions. CK(+) and CK(++) were subsets of F-NCP to investigate some aspects of the CK space. For each input set, plans were generated with up to 30 selected beam directions. Generated plans were clinically acceptable, according to an assessment of our clinicians. Convergence in plan quality occurred only after around 20 included beams. For individual patients, variations in PTV dose delivery between the five generated plans were minimal, as aimed for (average spread in V(95): 0.4%). This allowed plan comparisons based on organ at risk (OAR) doses, with the rectum considered most important. Plans generated with the NCP search spaces had improved OAR sparing compared to the CP search space, especially for the rectum. OAR sparing was best with the F-NCP, with reductions in rectum D(Mean), V(40Gy), V(60Gy) and D(2%) compared to CP of 25%, 35%, 37% and 8%, respectively. Reduced rectum sparing with the CK search space compared to F-NCP could be largely compensated by expanding CK with beams with relatively large direction components along the superior-inferior axis (CK(++)). Addition of posterior beams (CK(++) → F-NCP) did not lead to further improvements in OAR sparing. Plans with 25 beams clearly performed better than 11-beam plans. For CP plans, an increase from 11 to 25 involved beams resulted in reductions in rectum D(Mean), V(40Gy), V(60Gy) and D(2%) of 39%, 57%, 64% and 13%, respectively.In a recent paper, we have published a new algorithm, designated 'iCycle', for fully automated multi-criterial optimization of beam angles and intensity profiles. In this study, we have used this algorithm to investigate the relationship between plan quality and the extent of the beam direction search space, i.e. the set of candidate beam directions that may be selected for generating an optimal plan. For a group of ten prostate cancer patients, optimal IMRT plans were made for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), mimicking high dose rate brachytherapy dosimetry. Plans were generated for five different beam direction input sets: a coplanar (CP) set and four non-coplanar (NCP) sets. For CP treatments, the search space consisted of 72 orientations (5° separations). The NCP CyberKnife (CK) space contained all directions available in the robotic CK treatment unit. The fully non-coplanar (F-NCP) set facilitated the highest possible degree of freedom in selecting optimal directions. CK(+) and CK(++) were subsets of F-NCP to investigate some aspects of the CK space. For each input set, plans were generated with up to 30 selected beam directions. Generated plans were clinically acceptable, according to an assessment of our clinicians. Convergence in plan quality occurred only after around 20 included beams. For individual patients, variations in PTV dose delivery between the five generated plans were minimal, as aimed for (average spread in V(95): 0.4%). This allowed plan comparisons based on organ at risk (OAR) doses, with the rectum considered most important. Plans generated with the NCP search spaces had improved OAR sparing compared to the CP search space, especially for the rectum. OAR sparing was best with the F-NCP, with reductions in rectum D(Mean), V(40Gy), V(60Gy) and D(2%) compared to CP of 25%, 35%, 37% and 8%, respectively. Reduced rectum sparing with the CK search space compared to F-NCP could be largely compensated by expanding CK with beams with relatively large direction components along the superior-inferior axis (CK(++)). Addition of posterior beams (CK(++) → F-NCP) did not lead to further improvements in OAR sparing. Plans with 25 beams clearly performed better than 11-beam plans. For CP plans, an increase from 11 to 25 involved beams resulted in reductions in rectum D(Mean), V(40Gy), V(60Gy) and D(2%) of 39%, 57%, 64% and 13%, respectively.
In a recent paper, we have published a new algorithm, designated 'iCycle', for fully automated multi-criterial optimization of beam angles and intensity profiles. In this study, we have used this algorithm to investigate the relationship between plan quality and the extent of the beam direction search space, i.e. the set of candidate beam directions that may be selected for generating an optimal plan. For a group of ten prostate cancer patients, optimal IMRT plans were made for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), mimicking high dose rate brachytherapy dosimetry. Plans were generated for five different beam direction input sets: a coplanar (CP) set and four non-coplanar (NCP) sets. For CP treatments, the search space consisted of 72 orientations (5° separations). The NCP CyberKnife (CK) space contained all directions available in the robotic CK treatment unit. The fully non-coplanar (F-NCP) set facilitated the highest possible degree of freedom in selecting optimal directions. CK(+) and CK(++) were subsets of F-NCP to investigate some aspects of the CK space. For each input set, plans were generated with up to 30 selected beam directions. Generated plans were clinically acceptable, according to an assessment of our clinicians. Convergence in plan quality occurred only after around 20 included beams. For individual patients, variations in PTV dose delivery between the five generated plans were minimal, as aimed for (average spread in V(95): 0.4%). This allowed plan comparisons based on organ at risk (OAR) doses, with the rectum considered most important. Plans generated with the NCP search spaces had improved OAR sparing compared to the CP search space, especially for the rectum. OAR sparing was best with the F-NCP, with reductions in rectum D(Mean), V(40Gy), V(60Gy) and D(2%) compared to CP of 25%, 35%, 37% and 8%, respectively. Reduced rectum sparing with the CK search space compared to F-NCP could be largely compensated by expanding CK with beams with relatively large direction components along the superior-inferior axis (CK(++)). Addition of posterior beams (CK(++) → F-NCP) did not lead to further improvements in OAR sparing. Plans with 25 beams clearly performed better than 11-beam plans. For CP plans, an increase from 11 to 25 involved beams resulted in reductions in rectum D(Mean), V(40Gy), V(60Gy) and D(2%) of 39%, 57%, 64% and 13%, respectively.
In a recent paper, we have published a new algorithm, designated 'iCycle', for fully automated multi-criterial optimization of beam angles and intensity profiles. In this study, we have used this algorithm to investigate the relationship between plan quality and the extent of the beam direction search space, i.e. the set of candidate beam directions that may be selected for generating an optimal plan. For a group of ten prostate cancer patients, optimal IMRT plans were made for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), mimicking high dose rate brachytherapy dosimetry. Plans were generated for five different beam direction input sets: a coplanar (CP) set and four non-coplanar (NCP) sets. For CP treatments, the search space consisted of 72 orientations (5° separations). The NCP CyberKnife (CK) space contained all directions available in the robotic CK treatment unit. The fully non-coplanar (F-NCP) set facilitated the highest possible degree of freedom in selecting optimal directions. CK+ and CK++ were subsets of F-NCP to investigate some aspects of the CK space. For each input set, plans were generated with up to 30 selected beam directions. Generated plans were clinically acceptable, according to an assessment of our clinicians. Convergence in plan quality occurred only after around 20 included beams. For individual patients, variations in PTV dose delivery between the five generated plans were minimal, as aimed for (average spread in V95: 0.4%). This allowed plan comparisons based on organ at risk (OAR) doses, with the rectum considered most important. Plans generated with the NCP search spaces had improved OAR sparing compared to the CP search space, especially for the rectum. OAR sparing was best with the F-NCP, with reductions in rectum DMean, V40Gy, V60Gy and D2% compared to CP of 25%, 35%, 37% and 8%, respectively. Reduced rectum sparing with the CK search space compared to F-NCP could be largely compensated by expanding CK with beams with relatively large direction components along the superior-inferior axis (CK++). Addition of posterior beams (CK++ → F-NCP) did not lead to further improvements in OAR sparing. Plans with 25 beams clearly performed better than 11-beam plans. For CP plans, an increase from 11 to 25 involved beams resulted in reductions in rectum DMean, V40Gy, V60Gy and D2% of 39%, 57%, 64% and 13%, respectively.
Author Breedveld, Sebastiaan
Voet, Peter W J
Heijmen, Ben J M
Aluwini, Shafak
Rossi, Linda
Lanconelli, Nico
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Linda
  surname: Rossi
  fullname: Rossi, Linda
  email: l.rossi@erasmusmc.nl
  organization: Alma Mater Studiorum, Department of Physics, Bologna University, Italy
– sequence: 2
  givenname: Sebastiaan
  surname: Breedveld
  fullname: Breedveld, Sebastiaan
  email: s.breedveld@erasmusmc.nl
  organization: Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus MC Rotterdam, Groene Hilledijk 301, 3075 EA Rotterdam, the Netherlands
– sequence: 3
  givenname: Ben J M
  surname: Heijmen
  fullname: Heijmen, Ben J M
  organization: Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus MC Rotterdam, Groene Hilledijk 301, 3075 EA Rotterdam, the Netherlands
– sequence: 4
  givenname: Peter W J
  surname: Voet
  fullname: Voet, Peter W J
  organization: Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus MC Rotterdam, Groene Hilledijk 301, 3075 EA Rotterdam, the Netherlands
– sequence: 5
  givenname: Nico
  surname: Lanconelli
  fullname: Lanconelli, Nico
  organization: Alma Mater Studiorum, Department of Physics, Bologna University, Italy
– sequence: 6
  givenname: Shafak
  surname: Aluwini
  fullname: Aluwini, Shafak
  organization: Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus MC Rotterdam, Groene Hilledijk 301, 3075 EA Rotterdam, the Netherlands
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22864234$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark eNqFkU1P3DAQhq2Kqiy0_6BCPnIJ64mdONtbQW1BokKi27NlO2MwSuLUdg7w6-tlKYce2tNcnmc-3jkiB1OYkJCPwM6Add2aMQ7VBppm3cg1yHUjBLwhK-AtVG3TsgOyekUOyVFKD4wBdLV4Rw7rumtFzcWKTDcTzfdIDeqR9j6izT5MNKGO9p6mWVukfqI2jPOSMfon7GlZpLJhHvSk417U092ANMzZj_5JP3dwIdKr77fbao4hZZ2R_ji_3b4nb50eEn54qcfk59cv24vL6vrm29XF5-vKipbligsunSsHoUQJjQTsAHsnBfS4MaJva7SGcwvcmdoazVoHjvcbJzppnDH8mJzu-5bpvxZMWY0-WRzKzhiWpIBx3na8a0RBT17QxYzYqzn6UcdH9SejAog9YMslKaJ7RYCp3SvULme1y1k1UoFUu1cU7dNfmvX5OZsctR_-J7O97MOsHsISp5LWv5Xf5WOc0A
CODEN PHMBA7
CitedBy_id crossref_primary_10_1007_s10589_017_9919_4
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_dib_2017_03_037
crossref_primary_10_1259_bjr_20180270
crossref_primary_10_3389_fonc_2021_717681
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_medengphy_2018_12_011
crossref_primary_10_1186_s13014_017_0767_2
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ijrobp_2013_02_002
crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0210279
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejor_2018_08_019
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prro_2013_10_009
crossref_primary_10_1120_jacmp_v15i1_4530
crossref_primary_10_1186_s13014_015_0494_5
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejmp_2022_06_017
crossref_primary_10_1259_bjr_20180908
crossref_primary_10_1118_1_4845055
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ijrobp_2015_03_013
crossref_primary_10_1017_S1460396920001193
crossref_primary_10_1186_s13014_015_0417_5
crossref_primary_10_3938_jkps_66_1918
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_radonc_2014_03_010
crossref_primary_10_4236_ijmpcero_2016_52014
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_radonc_2021_03_003
crossref_primary_10_1007_s41365_021_00848_4
crossref_primary_10_1200_GO_21_00393
crossref_primary_10_1177_1533034616682156
crossref_primary_10_3389_fonc_2021_620978
crossref_primary_10_1088_1361_6560_62_11_4318
crossref_primary_10_1088_1742_6596_616_1_012012
crossref_primary_10_1118_1_4944740
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_meddos_2018_10_003
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ijrobp_2013_08_009
crossref_primary_10_1088_1742_6596_616_1_012014
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_phro_2025_100714
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prro_2018_07_001
crossref_primary_10_1088_1361_6560_ac4b37
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_radonc_2015_02_006
crossref_primary_10_4236_ijmpcero_2015_42018
crossref_primary_10_1002_acm2_12915
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ctro_2024_100792
crossref_primary_10_1088_1361_6560_ad1e7a
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ijrobp_2013_12_045
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ijrobp_2013_12_046
crossref_primary_10_1080_0284186X_2020_1766697
crossref_primary_10_1002_mp_13848
crossref_primary_10_1080_0284186X_2018_1479068
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejor_2017_04_062
crossref_primary_10_1007_s11604_021_01186_6
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_radonc_2017_02_018
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_adro_2024_101701
crossref_primary_10_1120_jacmp_v15i4_4427
crossref_primary_10_3390_cancers13225683
Cites_doi 10.1177/153303461000900502
10.1088/0031-9155/41/10/017
10.1088/0031-9155/56/12/014
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.10.075
10.1088/0031-9155/53/4/011
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.11.054
10.1007/s00066-009-1982-z
10.1118/1.3549765
10.1016/S0360-3016(01)01607-8
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.10.026
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.07.846
10.1186/1748-717X-6-3
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.08.014
10.1118/1.4736803
10.1287/ijoc.1080.0279
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.07.1984
10.1089/end.2009.0438
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.12.045
10.1097/01.ju.0000113299.34404.22
10.1088/0031-9155/47/3/303
10.1088/0031-9155/45/8/306
10.1118/1.3676689
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.03.078
10.1088/0031-9155/46/9/315
10.1016/S0360-3016(01)01651-0
10.1080/10556780600604940
10.1177/153303460300200104
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.07.970
10.1097/COC.0b013e3181c4c7c4
10.1016/j.radonc.2008.06.001
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.07.717
10.1016/S0360-3016(98)00438-6
10.1088/0031-9155/53/11/002
10.1088/0031-9155/52/20/016
10.1088/0031-9155/54/23/011
10.3109/02841869509127197
10.1088/0031-9155/41/4/005
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.11.067
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright 2012 Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine
Copyright_xml – notice: 2012 Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine
DBID AAYXX
CITATION
CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
7X8
DOI 10.1088/0031-9155/57/17/5441
DatabaseName CrossRef
Medline
MEDLINE
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE
MEDLINE
PubMed
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitle CrossRef
MEDLINE
Medline Complete
MEDLINE with Full Text
PubMed
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList MEDLINE - Academic
MEDLINE

Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 2
  dbid: EIF
  name: MEDLINE
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search
  sourceTypes: Index Database
DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Medicine
Biology
Physics
DocumentTitleAlternate On the beam direction search space in computerized non-coplanar beam angle optimization for IMRT---prostate SBRT
EISSN 1361-6560
EndPage 5458
ExternalDocumentID 22864234
10_1088_0031_9155_57_17_5441
pmb429969
Genre Journal Article
GroupedDBID ---
-DZ
-~X
123
1JI
1WK
4.4
5B3
5RE
5VS
5ZH
7.M
7.Q
9BW
AAGCD
AAJIO
AAJKP
AALHV
AATNI
ABCXL
ABHWH
ABJNI
ABLJU
ABQJV
ABVAM
ACAFW
ACGFS
ACHIP
AEFHF
AENEX
AFYNE
AKPSB
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
AOAED
ASPBG
ATQHT
AVWKF
AZFZN
CJUJL
CRLBU
CS3
DU5
EBS
EDWGO
EJD
EMSAF
EPQRW
EQZZN
F5P
FEDTE
HAK
HVGLF
IHE
IJHAN
IOP
IZVLO
JCGBZ
KOT
LAP
M45
N5L
N9A
NT-
NT.
P2P
PJBAE
Q02
R4D
RIN
RNS
RO9
ROL
RPA
S3P
SY9
TN5
UCJ
W28
XPP
AAYXX
ADEQX
AERVB
CITATION
CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
7X8
AEINN
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c460t-3437ff441e7e71571e81edf741de9b4d62ecb33c13fb2cba06f1f3d9f487bfbb3
IEDL.DBID IOP
ISSN 0031-9155
1361-6560
IngestDate Fri Sep 05 06:47:56 EDT 2025
Mon Jul 21 05:56:03 EDT 2025
Tue Jul 01 00:24:59 EDT 2025
Thu Apr 24 23:12:29 EDT 2025
Wed Aug 21 03:40:32 EDT 2024
IsDoiOpenAccess false
IsOpenAccess true
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 17
Language English
LinkModel DirectLink
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c460t-3437ff441e7e71571e81edf741de9b4d62ecb33c13fb2cba06f1f3d9f487bfbb3
Notes ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
OpenAccessLink https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-9155/57/17/5441/pdf
PMID 22864234
PQID 1033683854
PQPubID 23479
PageCount 18
ParticipantIDs crossref_primary_10_1088_0031_9155_57_17_5441
proquest_miscellaneous_1033683854
pubmed_primary_22864234
iop_journals_10_1088_0031_9155_57_17_5441
crossref_citationtrail_10_1088_0031_9155_57_17_5441
ProviderPackageCode CITATION
AAYXX
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 2012-09-07
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2012-09-07
PublicationDate_xml – month: 09
  year: 2012
  text: 2012-09-07
  day: 07
PublicationDecade 2010
PublicationPlace England
PublicationPlace_xml – name: England
PublicationTitle Physics in medicine & biology
PublicationTitleAbbrev PMB
PublicationTitleAlternate Phys. Med. Biol
PublicationYear 2012
Publisher IOP Publishing
Publisher_xml – name: IOP Publishing
References 22
Monz M (29) 2008; 53
25
26
27
King C (24) 2003; 2
28
Breedveld S (7) 2009; 54
Pugachev A (32) 2001; 46
Jeraj R (21) 2002; 47
Woudstra E (40) 2000; 45
(19) 2010
30
31
11
12
Craft D (10) 2008; 53
13
Freeman D E (15) 2010; 33
35
14
36
Voet P (39) 2012
16
38
17
18
Kilby W (23) 2010; 9
Storchi P (33) 1996; 41
van Santvoort J P C (37) 1996; 41
1
2
3
4
5
Teichert K (34) 2011; 56
8
9
Breedveld S (6) 2007; 52
41
20
References_xml – volume: 9
  start-page: 433
  issn: 1533-0346
  year: 2010
  ident: 23
  publication-title: Technol. Cancer Res. Treat.
  doi: 10.1177/153303461000900502
– volume: 41
  start-page: 2091
  issn: 0031-9155
  year: 1996
  ident: 37
  publication-title: Phys. Med. Biol.
  doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/41/10/017
– volume: 56
  start-page: 3669
  issn: 0031-9155
  year: 2011
  ident: 34
  publication-title: Phys. Med. Biol.
  doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/56/12/014
– ident: 28
  doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.10.075
– volume: 53
  start-page: 985
  issn: 0031-9155
  year: 2008
  ident: 29
  publication-title: Phys. Med. Biol.
  doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/53/4/011
– ident: 26
  doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.11.054
– ident: 30
  doi: 10.1007/s00066-009-1982-z
– ident: 36
  doi: 10.1118/1.3549765
– ident: 13
  doi: 10.1016/S0360-3016(01)01607-8
– ident: 20
  doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.10.026
– ident: 16
  doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.07.846
– ident: 14
  doi: 10.1186/1748-717X-6-3
– ident: 12
  doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.08.014
– ident: 38
  doi: 10.1118/1.4736803
– ident: 2
  doi: 10.1287/ijoc.1080.0279
– ident: 41
  doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.07.1984
– ident: 3
  doi: 10.1089/end.2009.0438
– ident: 4
  doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.12.045
– ident: 18
  doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000113299.34404.22
– volume: 47
  start-page: 391
  issn: 0031-9155
  year: 2002
  ident: 21
  publication-title: Phys. Med. Biol.
  doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/47/3/303
– volume: 45
  start-page: 2133
  issn: 0031-9155
  year: 2000
  ident: 40
  publication-title: Phys. Med. Biol.
  doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/45/8/306
– ident: 8
  doi: 10.1118/1.3676689
– year: 2010
  ident: 19
– ident: 27
  doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.03.078
– volume: 46
  start-page: 2467
  issn: 0031-9155
  year: 2001
  ident: 32
  publication-title: Phys. Med. Biol.
  doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/46/9/315
– ident: 25
  doi: 10.1016/S0360-3016(01)01651-0
– ident: 1
  doi: 10.1080/10556780600604940
– volume: 2
  start-page: 25
  issn: 1533-0346
  year: 2003
  ident: 24
  publication-title: Technol. Cancer Res. Treat.
  doi: 10.1177/153303460300200104
– issn: 0360-3016
  year: 2012
  ident: 39
  publication-title: Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys.
– volume: 33
  start-page: 208
  year: 2010
  ident: 15
  publication-title: Am. J. Clin. Oncol.
– ident: 31
  doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.07.970
– ident: 35
  doi: 10.1097/COC.0b013e3181c4c7c4
– ident: 11
  doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2008.06.001
– ident: 22
  doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.07.717
– ident: 9
  doi: 10.1016/S0360-3016(98)00438-6
– volume: 53
  start-page: 2785
  issn: 0031-9155
  year: 2008
  ident: 10
  publication-title: Phys. Med. Biol.
  doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/53/11/002
– volume: 52
  start-page: 6339
  issn: 0031-9155
  year: 2007
  ident: 6
  publication-title: Phys. Med. Biol.
  doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/52/20/016
– volume: 54
  start-page: 7199
  issn: 0031-9155
  year: 2009
  ident: 7
  publication-title: Phys. Med. Biol.
  doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/54/23/011
– ident: 5
  doi: 10.3109/02841869509127197
– volume: 41
  start-page: 637
  issn: 0031-9155
  year: 1996
  ident: 33
  publication-title: Phys. Med. Biol.
  doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/41/4/005
– ident: 17
  doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.11.067
SSID ssj0011824
Score 2.3133128
Snippet In a recent paper, we have published a new algorithm, designated 'iCycle', for fully automated multi-criterial optimization of beam angles and intensity...
SourceID proquest
pubmed
crossref
iop
SourceType Aggregation Database
Index Database
Enrichment Source
Publisher
StartPage 5441
SubjectTerms Algorithms
beam angle optimization
CyberKnife
Humans
IMRT optimization
Male
Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy
Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery
Radiosurgery - methods
Radiotherapy Dosage
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods
Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods
Time Factors
Title On the beam direction search space in computerized non-coplanar beam angle optimization for IMRT-prostate SBRT
URI https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-9155/57/17/5441
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22864234
https://www.proquest.com/docview/1033683854
Volume 57
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1baxQxFA5aUXzxUm_rjQi--JBlcplJ5lHFUoW1UrfQtzGXk1Lczizt7oP99Z5MsgsKpYhvw5CT-0m-cC4fIW-DNZU3jWI8ipopJYC54CVrvbW1roJwoylm9rXZP1JfjuvjwnM6xsIMy3L0T_EzJwrOU1gc4kyiH-MspTVPj3mO73mVAtdvycSmlCL4Dr5tzQgInnMa5iKxiZ27opY_7qab2P7VsHO8fvbukx-bjmevk5_T9cpN_eVfOR3_Y2QPyL0CTen7XPwhuQH9LrmdySp_7ZI7s2KGx5-j36i_eET6g54ihKQO7BnN1yMuNM36Q_G08kBPe-oLd8TpJQTaDz3zw3Jhe3ueBW1_sgA64Ol1VsJCKWJp-nl2OGfLFJaCgJh-_3A4f0yO9j7NP-6zQuHAvGqqFZNK6hhxGKBB81pzMBxCRBgToHUqNAK8k9JzGZ3wzlZN5FGGNuI7ykXn5BOyg72CZ4T6yF0IuoImgnIQW2sQzDpb-7ppTawmRG4Wr_Mlv3mi2Vh0o53dmDENapemt6t1x3WXpndC2FZqmfN7XFP-Ha5eVxT94pqybza7p0OlTZYY28OwTlJSNkaaWk3I07yttq0LgaojpHr-Dy29IHcRyInR902_JDur8zW8QrC0cq9HhfgNZSwFbQ
linkProvider IOP Publishing
linkToPdf http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1Lb9QwEB61RVS9UChQlvIwEhcOXpLYSZwjFFZdYNuqbKXeIj-rqtskancP9Nczjr0rgVRViFsUefwaj-ez5gXw3kiRaFFwmrosp5xnliqjGa20lHmZmEz1ppjJYXFwyr-d5WdrsL-KhWm7ePUP8TMkCg5bGB3ihC8_llKf1tw_5lN8z6NG_9gZtw4PcpaXXjrHR8crUwIC6JCKOVIt4-fu6OkP_bSOc7gbevYqaLQNZjn54HlyOVzM1VDf_pXX8T9X9xgeRYhKPgWSJ7Bmmx14GIpW_tqBzUk0x-PP3n9U3zyF5qghCCWJsvKKBDWJDCdBjgjeWtqSi4boWEPi4tYa0rQN1W03k428DoSyOZ9Z0uItdhXDQwliajKenExp58NTEBiTn59Pps_gdPR1un9AYykHqnmRzCnjrHQOl2JLW6bIJCtSaxzCGWMrxU2RWa0Y0ylzKtNKJoVLHTOVw_eUckqx57CBs7IvgGiXKmPKxBbOcmVdJQWCWiVznReVcMkA2JKBtY55zn25jVnd29uF6NOh1n6L67ys07L2WzwAuqLqQp6Pe9p_QA7WUeBv7mn7bnmCahReb5GRjW0XnoqxQjCR8wHshqO1Gj3LUIQyxl_-w0hvYfP4y6j-MT78vgdbiO2y3h2ufAUb8-uFfY34aa7e9PLxG3XlCtc
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=On+the+beam+direction+search+space+in+computerized+non-coplanar+beam+angle+optimization+for+IMRT-prostate+SBRT&rft.jtitle=Physics+in+medicine+%26+biology&rft.au=Rossi%2C+Linda&rft.au=Breedveld%2C+Sebastiaan&rft.au=Heijmen%2C+Ben+J+M&rft.au=Voet%2C+Peter+W+J&rft.date=2012-09-07&rft.issn=1361-6560&rft.eissn=1361-6560&rft.volume=57&rft.issue=17&rft.spage=5441&rft_id=info:doi/10.1088%2F0031-9155%2F57%2F17%2F5441&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0031-9155&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0031-9155&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0031-9155&client=summon