2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2014.09.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparison of inverse optimization algorithms for HDR/PDR prostate brachytherapy treatment planning

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
44
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 43 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
1
44
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Underlying this is mostly a dose‐based objective function (DBOF), in which dose values below or above a certain threshold are penalized with a certain weighting factor and the most prominent tools for optimization are hybrid inverse treatment planning and optimization (HIPO) and inverse planning dose optimization by simulated annealing (IPSA) . Both are routinely used in prostate brachytherapy and well‐evaluated in different studies . Despite the lack of direct control over multiple dose‐metric objectives for each organ both methods have also been used for gynecologic applications .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Underlying this is mostly a dose‐based objective function (DBOF), in which dose values below or above a certain threshold are penalized with a certain weighting factor and the most prominent tools for optimization are hybrid inverse treatment planning and optimization (HIPO) and inverse planning dose optimization by simulated annealing (IPSA) . Both are routinely used in prostate brachytherapy and well‐evaluated in different studies . Despite the lack of direct control over multiple dose‐metric objectives for each organ both methods have also been used for gynecologic applications .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another study comparing EGO-IIP to three other methods showed that all of them could reach the same level of compliance to clinical dose objectives. 21 User preference and expert opinion of the physician play a determinant role in the choice of optimization method.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Anatomy-based inverse optimization algorithms are already available in brachytherapy systems for clinical use [22, 23, 24, 38]. During the optimization process, the source dwell times for active source dwell positions are calculated with the aim of fulfilling thresholds for dose-volume parameters.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The two most common inverse algorithms are the HIPO (Hybrid Inverse Planning Optimization) and IPSA (Inverse Planning Simulated Annealing) [22, 23, 24]. The former uses deterministic, while the latter works with stochastic method.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%