Pinnacle evolution

Skip to first unread message


Feb 12, 2021, 3:48:45 PM2/12/21
to pinnacle3-users

Hello, I was wondering if anyone here have seen or tested the last version of Pinnacle (AKA "pinnacle evolution")

- Philips claims it is faster than the previous version: for the same hardware is the difference noticeable in practice?
- Is the quality of the plans similar (assuming autoplanning is used in both)?
- Does it support sliding windows?
- Did they finally fix the bug that shows some arcs as undeliverable in Elekta linacs (the "red MU issue")?
- Appart from the optimization algorithm, are there any difference in the dose calculation algorithm (CCC) or in the organization of the differnet windows? (IMO, currently too many floating windows and the different controls should be presented in a more compact way)



GRES Anthony

Mar 5, 2021, 8:54:01 AM3/5/21



We use Evolution for 3 months.

We didn’t have autoplanning before, but evolution is really faster than conventional planning in 16.2 version.

I think that with some experience and using feasibility we can improve our plan.

It support sliding windows. For the bug “red MU issue” we’ve meet it when we change manually MU (for normalise dose for example ) and/or when we choose option “match target coverage” => this issue is only due to a manual change of MU which train a change in physical machine limit (as gantry speed, mlc speed…)

The algorithm stay a CCC and there is a “big” change in windows organisation : really less floating windows.

The biggest difference for us is the way to optimise dosimetry : there is a lot of more parameter to optimize it (some of them would be really helpful for SBRT treatment : falloffPriority management)

If  you have any question don’t hesitate to contact me.


Kind regards,




De : [] De la part de JoFe
Envoyé : vendredi 12 février 2021 21:49
À : pinnacle3-users
Objet : [p3rtp] Pinnacle evolution

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "pinnacle3-users" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To subscribe to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pinnacle3-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
To view this discussion on the web visit

Grégory Bolard

Mar 5, 2021, 9:43:12 AM3/5/21



Just quick comment: Sliding window IMRT is not supported in Pinnacle Evolution (Step & Shoot yes).

Dose calculation algorithm is much faster on same hardware. Optimization algorithms are also different and faster:

I agree with other facts, integrated plan feasibility makes optimization problem formulation much easier.


In case of red MUs due to small prescription changes, you can still export the plan which was not the case in earlier versions of Pinnacle (we don't have this problem with our Varian machine).

To be confirmed but next version will require next Philips IT platform with Pinnacle on RHEL :


Best regards,


Hôpital de La Tour, Switzerland


> Message du 05/03/21 14:54
> De : "GRES Anthony" <>
> A : "" <>
> Copie à :
> Objet : RE: [p3rtp] Pinnacle evolution
To view this discussion on the web visit


Nov 4, 2021, 2:49:18 AM11/4/21
to pinnacle3-users
We recentrly saw a demonstration of Evolution and I remembered this discussion. All the changes are in the optimizer part, mainly in what we call now autoplanning and is renamed to personalized planning in the new version if I recall well. The optimization algorithms are different and the organization of the information in that window has changed too. There is an option to integrate the feasibility graphs "PlanIQ" that could be useful to set the optimization goals, but it is an additional license. We didn't see any other changes in the general organization and GUIs of the TPS, apparently all the other windows are the same as in version 16.2 ( setup, POIs, ROIs, Beams, etc) and in some of them you need to scroll up and down a lot to access the diferent controls (or open additional windows with "spreadsheets"), so we didn't see great improvements in usability. The dose algorithms are the same too, which I think are quite good for photons but not so good for electrons.

I can't say anything about the calculation speed because we couldn't make a direct comparison. According to the person in charge of the demonstration, the optimization can take a little longer to present a first result compared with the autoplanning in 16.2 but the result is ussually better.

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages