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...
Saved in:
Published in | Physics in medicine & biology Vol. 57; no. 17; pp. 5441 - 5458 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
England
IOP Publishing
07.09.2012
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
ISSN | 0031-9155 1361-6560 1361-6560 |
DOI | 10.1088/0031-9155/57/17/5441 |
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 |