Abstract
Purpose: We investigated the differences between geometrical optimization and inverse planning simulated annealing (IPSA) for the treatment of cervical cancer. Methods and Materials: Patients were selected and two optimization plans for each patient were generated with geometrical optimization and IPSA. The clinic target volume and critical organs were contoured using Oncentra MasterPlan Version 3.1(Nucletron Corp., Veenendaal, The Netherlands). For each patient, the dose constrains and optimization parameters were set to meet clinic goal for all plans. The dose volume histograms (DVH) of target and critical organs were generated for comparison. Results: We found that IPSA significantly improved the target dose homogeneity compared with geometrical optimization. For the tumors adjacent to critical structures, IPSA dramatically spared the volume of the critical structures to be irradiated. Conclusions: IPSA is superior over geometrical optimization in terms of target coverage and minimizing normal structures irradiated.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
