Academic Journal
Automatic single-isocenter multiple-target cranial stereotactic treatment plan optimization via planning system scripting.
| Τίτλος: | Automatic single-isocenter multiple-target cranial stereotactic treatment plan optimization via planning system scripting. |
|---|---|
| Συγγραφείς: | Dekker KH; Medical Physics Department, Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario, Kingston Health Sciences Centre, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.; Department of Oncology, Queen's University at Kingston, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.; Department of Physics, Engineering Physics, and Astronomy, Queen's University at Kingston, Kingston, Ontario, Canada., Everaars JA; Radiation Therapy Department, Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario, Kingston Health Sciences Centre, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. |
| Πηγή: | Journal of applied clinical medical physics [J Appl Clin Med Phys] 2026 Oct; Vol. 27 (10), pp. e70832. |
| Τύπος έκδοσης: | Journal Article |
| Γλώσσα: | English |
| Στοιχεία περιοδικού: | Publisher: Wiley on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101089176 Publication Model: Print Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1526-9914 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 15269914 NLM ISO Abbreviation: J Appl Clin Med Phys Subsets: MEDLINE |
| Imprint Name(s): | Publication: 2017- : Malden, MA : Wiley on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine Original Publication: Reston, VA : American College of Medical Physics, c2000- |
| Ιατρικοί όροι (MeSH): | Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted*/methods , Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted*/standards , Radiosurgery*/methods , Particle Accelerators*/instrumentation , Brain Neoplasms*/surgery , Quality Assurance, Health Care*/standards , Software*, Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated/methods ; Organs at Risk/radiation effects ; Humans ; Radiotherapy Dosage ; Retrospective Studies ; Algorithms |
| Περίληψη: | Background: Single-isocenter multiple-target stereotactic radiation treatments delivered on C-arm linear accelerators are increasingly common due to practical advantages in both accessibility and speed compared to multiple isocenter treatments. Optimization of high-quality treatment plans can be a time-consuming process requiring substantial manual effort. In our institution, the planning workflow for these treatments was entirely manual and involved the generation of optimization structures and repeated recalculation and input of optimization objectives during the iterative optimization process. Although commercial automated planning solutions are available, their implementation may impose operational constraints, including reliance on specific immobilization and image/surface guidance hardware, motivating the development of an immobilization-independent automation tool for cranial stereotactic treatment plan optimization. Purpose: To develop and implement a treatment planning optimization tool for multiple-target cranial stereotactic treatments in the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system, to reduce manual planner input and planning time while improving plan quality. Methods: A software tool was written using the Varian Eclipse Scripting Application Programming Interface to automatically generate target-specific ring structures and facilitate the iterative process of plan generation. Twenty cases were retrospectively re-planned with this tool and compared with the corresponding clinical plans to evaluate plan quality using qualitative and quantitative metrics of conformality and complexity. Automated plans were verified using portal dosimetry to ensure clinical deliverability. For ten cases, a timing study was performed to compare optimization time between the software tool and manual re-optimization. Results: The automatic optimization tool produced plans with similar modulation and complexity, but consistently lower dosimetric falloff metrics (R Discussion: The automated planning tool produced clinically acceptable, deliverable plans with better dose falloff compared to the previous manual planning approach. The tool is estimated to save an average of 15 min of optimization time per plan. Conclusions: A treatment planning optimization tool has been developed that provides improvement in both dosimetric plan quality and treatment planning efficiency for single-isocenter multiple-target cranial stereotactic treatments. (© 2026 The Author(s). Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine.) |
| References: | Minniti G, Clarke E, Lanzetta G, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases: analysis of outcome and risk of brain radionecrosis. Radiat Oncol Lond Engl. 2011;6:48. doi:10.1186/1748‐717X‐6‐48. Blonigen BJ, Steinmetz RD, Levin L, Lamba MA, Warnick RE, and Breneman JC. Irradiated volume as a predictor of brain radionecrosis after linear accelerator stereotactic radiosurgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;77(4):996‐1001. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.06.006. Desai DD, Cordrey IL, and Johnson E l. Efficient optimization of R50% when planning multiple cranial metastases simultaneously in single isocenter SRS/SRT. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2021;22(6):71‐82. doi:10.1002/acm2.13254. Ballangrud Å, Kuo LC, Happersett L, et al. Institutional experience with SRS VMAT planning for multiple cranial metastases. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018;19(2):176‐183. doi:10.1002/acm2.12284. Popple RA, Brown MH, Thomas EM, et al. Transition from manual to automated planning and delivery of volumetric modulated arc therapy stereotactic radiosurgery: clinical, dosimetric, and quality assurance results. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2021;11(2):e163‐e171. doi:10.1016/j.prro.2020.10.013. Duan Y, Gan W, Wang H, et al. On the optimal number of dose‐limiting shells in the SBRT auto‐planning design for peripheral lung cancer. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020;21(9):134‐142. doi:10.1002/acm2.12983. Wang D, DeNittis A, and Hu Y. Strategies to optimize stereotactic radiosurgery plans for brain tumors with volumetric‐modulated arc therapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020;21(3):45‐51. doi:10.1002/acm2.12818. Liu H, Andrews DW, Evans JJ, et al. Plan quality and treatment efficiency for radiosurgery to multiple brain metastases: non‐coplanar RapidArc vs. gamma knife. Front Oncol. 2016;6:26. doi:10.3389/fonc.2016.00026. Clark GM, Popple RA, Prendergast BM, et al. Plan quality and treatment planning technique for single isocenter cranial radiosurgery with volumetric modulated arc therapy. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2012;2(4):306‐313. doi:10.1016/j.prro.2011.12.003. Narayanasamy G, Shrestha N, Bimali M, Xia F, and Su Z. Producing high quality cranial SRS plans with 4Pi planning technique in a commercial clinical solution. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2025;26(7):e70115. doi:10.1002/acm2.70115. Kallenberg P, Mishra K, and Desai D. Eclipse AFI manual planning vs brainlab auto‐planning: a comparison of SRS plan quality. In: Medical Physics 2025;52(10):p e70059364‐e70059365. Ohira S, Ueda Y, Akino Y, et al. HyperArc VMAT planning for single and multiple brain metastases stereotactic radiosurgery: a new treatment planning approach. Radiat Oncol Lond Engl. 2018;13(1):13. doi:10.1186/s13014‐017‐0948‐z. Ruggieri R, Naccarato S, Mazzola R, et al. Linac‐based VMAT radiosurgery for multiple brain lesions: comparison between a conventional multi‐isocenter approach and a new dedicated mono‐isocenter technique. Radiat Oncol. 2018;13(1):38. doi:10.1186/s13014‐018‐0985‐2. Desai DD, Cordrey IL, Johnson EL, and Oldland TA. AFI manual planning versus HyperArc auto‐planning: a head‐to‐head comparison of SRS plan quality. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2024;25(11):e14503. doi:10.1002/acm2.14503. Kuo L, Zhang P, Pham H, and Ballangrud ÅM. Implementation and validation of an in‐house geometry optimization software for SRS VMAT planning of multiple cranial metastases. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020;21(9):25‐32. doi:10.1002/acm2.12961. Mann TD, Thind KS, and Ploquin NP. Fast stereotactic radiosurgery planning using patient‐specific beam angle optimization and automation. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2022;21:90‐95. doi:10.1016/j.phro.2022.02.009. Mann T, Ploquin N, Faruqi S, Loewen S, and Thind K. Stereotactic optimized automated radiotherapy (SOAR): a novel automated planning solution for multi‐metastatic SRS compared to HyperArc™. Biomed Phys Eng Express. 2024;10(2):025037. doi:10.1088/2057‐1976/ad2a1b. Barrett R, Hale R, Lenards N, Hunzeker A, and Zeiler S. Improved planning efficiency in multiple brain lesion SRS VMAT cases using Eclipse scripting. Med Dosim. 2023;48(4):231‐237. doi:10.1016/j.meddos.2023.05.001. Basharat F, Dekker K, Olding T, Alexander K, and Kerr A. Dosimetric advantage of HyperArc over an institutional RapidArc planning technique for stereotactic treatment of multiple brain metastases. In: Medical Physics. 2024;51: 5786‐5786. Heron DE, Huq MS, and Herman JM. Stereotactic Radiosurgery and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT). Springer Publishing Company; 2018. Guida K, Soultan D, and Li H. Treatment planning for hypofractionated RT and SRS/SBRT. In: Kaidar‐Person O, Chen R, eds. Hypofractionated and Stereotactic Radiation Therapy: A Practical Guide. Springer International Publishing; 2024:79‐114. doi:10.1007/978‐3‐031‐47701‐0_4. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Published online 2025. https://www.R‐project.org/. Liu H, Sintay B, Pearman K, et al. Comparison of the progressive resolution optimizer and photon optimizer in VMAT optimization for stereotactic treatments. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018;19(4):155‐162. doi:10.1002/acm2.12355. McNiven AL, Sharpe MB, and Purdie TG. A new metric for assessing IMRT modulation complexity and plan deliverability: new metric for assessing IMRT complexity and deliverability. Med Phys. 2010;37(2):505‐515. doi:10.1118/1.3276775. Paddick I. A simple scoring ratio to index the conformity of radiosurgical treatment plans: technical note. J Neurosurg. 2000;93(supplement_3): 219‐222. doi:10.3171/jns.2000.93.supplement_3.0219. Paddick I and Lippitz B. A simple dose gradient measurement tool to complement the conformity index. J Neurosurg. 2006;105: 194‐201. doi:10.3171/sup.2006.105.7.194. Van Esch A. aS1200 Ann's Preconfigured Package. Published online January 13, 2019. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.28143.28323. Esch AV, Huyskens DP, Hirschi L, Scheib S, and Baltes C. Optimized varian aSi portal dosimetry: development of datasets for collective use. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013;14(6):82‐99. doi:10.1120/jacmp.v14i6.4286. Abisheva Z, Floyd SR, Salama JK, et al. The effect of MLC leaf width in single‐isocenter multi‐target radiosurgery with volumetric modulated arc therapy. J Radiosurgery SBRT. 2019;6(2):131‐138. Viola P, Romano C, Craus M, et al. Prediction of VMAT delivery accuracy using plan modulation complexity score and log‐files analysis. Biomed Phys Eng Express. 2022;8(5):055020. doi:10.1088/2057‐1976/ac82c6. Desai DD, Cordrey IL, and Johnson EL. A measure of SRS/SRT plan quality: quantitative limits for intermediate dose spill (R50%) in linac‐based delivery. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2022;23(5):e13570. doi:10.1002/acm2.13570. |
| Contributed Indexing: | Keywords: SIMT; TPS scripting; plan quality; planning automation |
| Entry Date(s): | Date Created: 20260930 Date Completed: 20260930 Latest Revision: 20260930 |
| Update Code: | 20261001 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/acm2.70832 |
| PMID: | 42816144 |
| Βάση Δεδομένων: | MEDLINE |
| FullText | Text: Availability: 0 CustomLinks: – Url: https://resolver.ebsco.com/c/fiv2js/result?sid=EBSCO:cmedm&genre=article&issn=15269914&ISBN=&volume=27&issue=10&date=20261001&spage=e70832&pages=e70832&title=Journal of applied clinical medical physics&atitle=Automatic%20single-isocenter%20multiple-target%20cranial%20stereotactic%20treatment%20plan%20optimization%20via%20planning%20system%20scripting.&aulast=Dekker%20KH&id=DOI:10.1002/acm2.70832 Name: Full Text Finder (for New FTF UI) (ns324271) Category: fullText Text: Full Text Finder MouseOverText: Full Text Finder |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: cmedm DbLabel: MEDLINE An: 42816144 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Automatic single-isocenter multiple-target cranial stereotactic treatment plan optimization via planning system scripting. – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AU" term="%22Dekker+KH%22">Dekker KH</searchLink>; Medical Physics Department, Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario, Kingston Health Sciences Centre, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.; Department of Oncology, Queen's University at Kingston, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.; Department of Physics, Engineering Physics, and Astronomy, Queen's University at Kingston, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AU" term="%22Everaars+JA%22">Everaars JA</searchLink>; Radiation Therapy Department, Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario, Kingston Health Sciences Centre, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22101089176%22">Journal of applied clinical medical physics</searchLink> [J Appl Clin Med Phys] 2026 Oct; Vol. 27 (10), pp. e70832. – Name: TypePub Label: Publication Type Group: TypPub Data: Journal Article – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: TitleSource Label: Journal Info Group: Src Data: <i>Publisher: </i><searchLink fieldCode="PB" term="%22Wiley+on+behalf+of+American+Association+of+Physicists+in+Medicine%22">Wiley on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine </searchLink><i>Country of Publication: </i>United States <i>NLM ID: </i>101089176 <i>Publication Model: </i>Print <i>Cited Medium: </i>Internet <i>ISSN: </i>1526-9914 (Electronic) <i>Linking ISSN: </i><searchLink fieldCode="IS" term="%2215269914%22">15269914 </searchLink><i>NLM ISO Abbreviation: </i>J Appl Clin Med Phys <i>Subsets: </i>MEDLINE – Name: PublisherInfo Label: Imprint Name(s) Group: PubInfo Data: <i>Publication</i>: 2017- : Malden, MA : Wiley on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine<br /><i>Original Publication</i>: Reston, VA : American College of Medical Physics, c2000- – Name: SubjectMESH Label: MeSH Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="MM" term="%22Radiotherapy+Planning%2C+Computer-Assisted%22">Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted*</searchLink>/<searchLink fieldCode="MM" term="%22Radiotherapy+Planning%2C+Computer-Assisted+methods%22">methods</searchLink> <br /><searchLink fieldCode="MM" term="%22Radiotherapy+Planning%2C+Computer-Assisted%22">Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted*</searchLink>/<searchLink fieldCode="MM" term="%22Radiotherapy+Planning%2C+Computer-Assisted+standards%22">standards</searchLink> <br /><searchLink fieldCode="MM" term="%22Radiosurgery%22">Radiosurgery*</searchLink>/<searchLink fieldCode="MM" term="%22Radiosurgery+methods%22">methods</searchLink> <br /><searchLink fieldCode="MM" term="%22Particle+Accelerators%22">Particle Accelerators*</searchLink>/<searchLink fieldCode="MM" term="%22Particle+Accelerators+instrumentation%22">instrumentation</searchLink> <br /><searchLink fieldCode="MM" term="%22Brain+Neoplasms%22">Brain Neoplasms*</searchLink>/<searchLink fieldCode="MM" term="%22Brain+Neoplasms+surgery%22">surgery</searchLink> <br /><searchLink fieldCode="MM" term="%22Quality+Assurance%2C+Health+Care%22">Quality Assurance, Health Care*</searchLink>/<searchLink fieldCode="MM" term="%22Quality+Assurance%2C+Health+Care+standards%22">standards</searchLink> <br /><searchLink fieldCode="MM" term="%22Software%22">Software*</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="MH" term="%22Radiotherapy%2C+Intensity-Modulated%22">Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated</searchLink>/<searchLink fieldCode="MH" term="%22Radiotherapy%2C+Intensity-Modulated+methods%22">methods</searchLink> ; <searchLink fieldCode="MH" term="%22Organs+at+Risk%22">Organs at Risk</searchLink>/<searchLink fieldCode="MH" term="%22Organs+at+Risk+radiation+effects%22">radiation effects</searchLink> ; <searchLink fieldCode="MH" term="%22Humans%22">Humans</searchLink> ; <searchLink fieldCode="MH" term="%22Radiotherapy+Dosage%22">Radiotherapy Dosage</searchLink> ; <searchLink fieldCode="MH" term="%22Retrospective+Studies%22">Retrospective Studies</searchLink> ; <searchLink fieldCode="MH" term="%22Algorithms%22">Algorithms</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Background: Single-isocenter multiple-target stereotactic radiation treatments delivered on C-arm linear accelerators are increasingly common due to practical advantages in both accessibility and speed compared to multiple isocenter treatments. Optimization of high-quality treatment plans can be a time-consuming process requiring substantial manual effort. In our institution, the planning workflow for these treatments was entirely manual and involved the generation of optimization structures and repeated recalculation and input of optimization objectives during the iterative optimization process.  Although commercial automated planning solutions are available, their implementation may impose operational constraints, including reliance on specific immobilization and image/surface guidance hardware, motivating the development of an immobilization-independent automation tool for cranial stereotactic treatment plan optimization.<br />Purpose: To develop and implement a treatment planning optimization tool for multiple-target cranial stereotactic treatments in the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system, to reduce manual planner input and planning time while improving plan quality.<br />Methods: A software tool was written using the Varian Eclipse Scripting Application Programming Interface to automatically generate target-specific ring structures and facilitate the iterative process of plan generation. Twenty cases were retrospectively re-planned with this tool and compared with the corresponding clinical plans to evaluate plan quality using qualitative and quantitative metrics of conformality and complexity. Automated plans were verified using portal dosimetry to ensure clinical deliverability. For ten cases, a timing study was performed to compare optimization time between the software tool and manual re-optimization.<br />Results: The automatic optimization tool produced plans with similar modulation and complexity, but consistently lower dosimetric falloff metrics (R<subscript>50%</subscript> and Paddick Gradient Index) than the corresponding clinical plans. All plans passed patient-specific QA (portal dosimetry) following institutional practice. For the ten cases included in the timing study, the software had a mean runtime of 5.8 min (range: 2-12 min), with variation depending on case characteristics such as number of targets and arcs employed. In comparison, manual plan generation required 21.5 min on average (range: 4-49 min).<br />Discussion: The automated planning tool produced clinically acceptable, deliverable plans with better dose falloff compared to the previous manual planning approach. The tool is estimated to save an average of 15 min of optimization time per plan.<br />Conclusions: A treatment planning optimization tool has been developed that provides improvement in both dosimetric plan quality and treatment planning efficiency for single-isocenter multiple-target cranial stereotactic treatments.<br /> (© 2026 The Author(s). Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine.) – Name: Ref Label: References Group: RefInfo Data: Minniti G, Clarke E, Lanzetta G, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases: analysis of outcome and risk of brain radionecrosis. Radiat Oncol Lond Engl. 2011;6:48. doi:10.1186/1748‐717X‐6‐48.<br />Blonigen BJ, Steinmetz RD, Levin L, Lamba MA, Warnick RE, and Breneman JC. Irradiated volume as a predictor of brain radionecrosis after linear accelerator stereotactic radiosurgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;77(4):996‐1001. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.06.006.<br />Desai DD, Cordrey IL, and Johnson E l. Efficient optimization of R50% when planning multiple cranial metastases simultaneously in single isocenter SRS/SRT. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2021;22(6):71‐82. doi:10.1002/acm2.13254.<br />Ballangrud Å, Kuo LC, Happersett L, et al. Institutional experience with SRS VMAT planning for multiple cranial metastases. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018;19(2):176‐183. doi:10.1002/acm2.12284.<br />Popple RA, Brown MH, Thomas EM, et al. Transition from manual to automated planning and delivery of volumetric modulated arc therapy stereotactic radiosurgery: clinical, dosimetric, and quality assurance results. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2021;11(2):e163‐e171. doi:10.1016/j.prro.2020.10.013.<br />Duan Y, Gan W, Wang H, et al. On the optimal number of dose‐limiting shells in the SBRT auto‐planning design for peripheral lung cancer. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020;21(9):134‐142. doi:10.1002/acm2.12983.<br />Wang D, DeNittis A, and Hu Y. Strategies to optimize stereotactic radiosurgery plans for brain tumors with volumetric‐modulated arc therapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020;21(3):45‐51. doi:10.1002/acm2.12818.<br />Liu H, Andrews DW, Evans JJ, et al. Plan quality and treatment efficiency for radiosurgery to multiple brain metastases: non‐coplanar RapidArc vs. gamma knife. Front Oncol. 2016;6:26. doi:10.3389/fonc.2016.00026.<br />Clark GM, Popple RA, Prendergast BM, et al. Plan quality and treatment planning technique for single isocenter cranial radiosurgery with volumetric modulated arc therapy. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2012;2(4):306‐313. doi:10.1016/j.prro.2011.12.003.<br />Narayanasamy G, Shrestha N, Bimali M, Xia F, and Su Z. Producing high quality cranial SRS plans with 4Pi planning technique in a commercial clinical solution. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2025;26(7):e70115. doi:10.1002/acm2.70115.<br />Kallenberg P, Mishra K, and Desai D. Eclipse AFI manual planning vs brainlab auto‐planning: a comparison of SRS plan quality. In: Medical Physics 2025;52(10):p e70059364‐e70059365.<br />Ohira S, Ueda Y, Akino Y, et al. HyperArc VMAT planning for single and multiple brain metastases stereotactic radiosurgery: a new treatment planning approach. Radiat Oncol Lond Engl. 2018;13(1):13. doi:10.1186/s13014‐017‐0948‐z.<br />Ruggieri R, Naccarato S, Mazzola R, et al. Linac‐based VMAT radiosurgery for multiple brain lesions: comparison between a conventional multi‐isocenter approach and a new dedicated mono‐isocenter technique. Radiat Oncol. 2018;13(1):38. doi:10.1186/s13014‐018‐0985‐2.<br />Desai DD, Cordrey IL, Johnson EL, and Oldland TA. AFI manual planning versus HyperArc auto‐planning: a head‐to‐head comparison of SRS plan quality. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2024;25(11):e14503. doi:10.1002/acm2.14503.<br />Kuo L, Zhang P, Pham H, and Ballangrud ÅM. Implementation and validation of an in‐house geometry optimization software for SRS VMAT planning of multiple cranial metastases. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020;21(9):25‐32. doi:10.1002/acm2.12961.<br />Mann TD, Thind KS, and Ploquin NP. Fast stereotactic radiosurgery planning using patient‐specific beam angle optimization and automation. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2022;21:90‐95. doi:10.1016/j.phro.2022.02.009.<br />Mann T, Ploquin N, Faruqi S, Loewen S, and Thind K. Stereotactic optimized automated radiotherapy (SOAR): a novel automated planning solution for multi‐metastatic SRS compared to HyperArc™. Biomed Phys Eng Express. 2024;10(2):025037. doi:10.1088/2057‐1976/ad2a1b.<br />Barrett R, Hale R, Lenards N, Hunzeker A, and Zeiler S. Improved planning efficiency in multiple brain lesion SRS VMAT cases using Eclipse scripting. Med Dosim. 2023;48(4):231‐237. doi:10.1016/j.meddos.2023.05.001.<br />Basharat F, Dekker K, Olding T, Alexander K, and Kerr A. Dosimetric advantage of HyperArc over an institutional RapidArc planning technique for stereotactic treatment of multiple brain metastases. In: Medical Physics. 2024;51: 5786‐5786.<br />Heron DE, Huq MS, and Herman JM. Stereotactic Radiosurgery and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT). Springer Publishing Company; 2018.<br />Guida K, Soultan D, and Li H. Treatment planning for hypofractionated RT and SRS/SBRT. In: Kaidar‐Person O, Chen R, eds. Hypofractionated and Stereotactic Radiation Therapy: A Practical Guide. Springer International Publishing; 2024:79‐114. doi:10.1007/978‐3‐031‐47701‐0&#95;4.<br />R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Published online 2025. https://www.R‐project.org/.<br />Liu H, Sintay B, Pearman K, et al. Comparison of the progressive resolution optimizer and photon optimizer in VMAT optimization for stereotactic treatments. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018;19(4):155‐162. doi:10.1002/acm2.12355.<br />McNiven AL, Sharpe MB, and Purdie TG. A new metric for assessing IMRT modulation complexity and plan deliverability: new metric for assessing IMRT complexity and deliverability. Med Phys. 2010;37(2):505‐515. doi:10.1118/1.3276775.<br />Paddick I. A simple scoring ratio to index the conformity of radiosurgical treatment plans: technical note. J Neurosurg. 2000;93(supplement&#95;3): 219‐222. doi:10.3171/jns.2000.93.supplement&#95;3.0219.<br />Paddick I and Lippitz B. A simple dose gradient measurement tool to complement the conformity index. J Neurosurg. 2006;105: 194‐201. doi:10.3171/sup.2006.105.7.194.<br />Van Esch A. aS1200 Ann's Preconfigured Package. Published online January 13, 2019. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.28143.28323.<br />Esch AV, Huyskens DP, Hirschi L, Scheib S, and Baltes C. Optimized varian aSi portal dosimetry: development of datasets for collective use. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013;14(6):82‐99. doi:10.1120/jacmp.v14i6.4286.<br />Abisheva Z, Floyd SR, Salama JK, et al. The effect of MLC leaf width in single‐isocenter multi‐target radiosurgery with volumetric modulated arc therapy. J Radiosurgery SBRT. 2019;6(2):131‐138.<br />Viola P, Romano C, Craus M, et al. Prediction of VMAT delivery accuracy using plan modulation complexity score and log‐files analysis. Biomed Phys Eng Express. 2022;8(5):055020. doi:10.1088/2057‐1976/ac82c6.<br />Desai DD, Cordrey IL, and Johnson EL. A measure of SRS/SRT plan quality: quantitative limits for intermediate dose spill (R50%) in linac‐based delivery. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2022;23(5):e13570. doi:10.1002/acm2.13570. – Name: SubjectMinor Label: Contributed Indexing Group: Data: <i>Keywords: </i>SIMT; TPS scripting; plan quality; planning automation – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date(s) Group: Date Data: <i>Date Created: </i>20260930 <i>Date Completed: </i>20260930 <i>Latest Revision: </i>20260930 – Name: DateUpdate Label: Update Code Group: Date Data: 20261001 – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1002/acm2.70832 – Name: AN Label: PMID Group: ID Data: 42816144 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=cmedm&AN=42816144 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1002/acm2.70832 Languages: – Code: eng Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: StartPage: e70832 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated methods Type: general – SubjectFull: Organs at Risk radiation effects Type: general – SubjectFull: Humans Type: general – SubjectFull: Radiotherapy Dosage Type: general – SubjectFull: Retrospective Studies Type: general – SubjectFull: Algorithms Type: general – SubjectFull: Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted methods Type: general – SubjectFull: Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted standards Type: general – SubjectFull: Radiosurgery methods Type: general – SubjectFull: Particle Accelerators instrumentation Type: general – SubjectFull: Brain Neoplasms surgery Type: general – SubjectFull: Quality Assurance, Health Care standards Type: general – SubjectFull: Software Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Automatic single-isocenter multiple-target cranial stereotactic treatment plan optimization via planning system scripting. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Dekker KH – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Everaars JA IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 10 Text: 2026 Oct Type: published Y: 2026 Identifiers: – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1526-9914 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 27 – Type: issue Value: 10 Titles: – TitleFull: Journal of applied clinical medical physics Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |