Vincent W C Wu1, Dora L W Kwong, Jonathan S T Sham. 1. Department of Optometry and Radiography, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Dose conformity to the planning target volume is an important criterion in radiotherapy treatment planning, for which the conformity index is a useful assessment tool. The purpose of this study is to compare the differences in CI for the treatment planning of four cancers including the nasopharynx, oesophagus, lung and prostate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy patients with cancers of nasopharynx (30), oesophagus (15), lung (15) and prostate (10) were recruited. Each of these patients was planned with three sets of treatment plans using the FOCUS treatment planning system: the forward and inverse 3DCRT plans and the IMRT plan. The CI was generated for each treatment plan. The mean CI from each cancer patient group was calculated and compared with the other three cancer groups. The mean value of CI was also compared among the three planning methods. RESULTS: The oesophageal and lung cancers demonstrated relatively higher overall mean CI values (0.64 and 0.62, respectively), whereas that of the nasopharynx and prostate were lower (0.54 and 0.50, respectively). With regards to the planning method groups, the IMRT plans produced the highest overall mean CI (0.62), while those for the forward and inverse 3DCRT were similar (0.57 and 0.55, respectively). CONCLUSION: For the four selected cancers, oesophageal and lung cancers were easier to conform than the nasopharyngeal and prostate cancers. The IMRT plans were more effective in achieving better dose conformity than that of the 3DCRT.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Dose conformity to the planning target volume is an important criterion in radiotherapy treatment planning, for which the conformity index is a useful assessment tool. The purpose of this study is to compare the differences in CI for the treatment planning of four cancers including the nasopharynx, oesophagus, lung and prostate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy patients with cancers of nasopharynx (30), oesophagus (15), lung (15) and prostate (10) were recruited. Each of these patients was planned with three sets of treatment plans using the FOCUS treatment planning system: the forward and inverse 3DCRT plans and the IMRT plan. The CI was generated for each treatment plan. The mean CI from each cancerpatient group was calculated and compared with the other three cancer groups. The mean value of CI was also compared among the three planning methods. RESULTS: The oesophageal and lung cancers demonstrated relatively higher overall mean CI values (0.64 and 0.62, respectively), whereas that of the nasopharynx and prostate were lower (0.54 and 0.50, respectively). With regards to the planning method groups, the IMRT plans produced the highest overall mean CI (0.62), while those for the forward and inverse 3DCRT were similar (0.57 and 0.55, respectively). CONCLUSION: For the four selected cancers, oesophageal and lung cancers were easier to conform than the nasopharyngeal and prostate cancers. The IMRT plans were more effective in achieving better dose conformity than that of the 3DCRT.
Authors: Mark E Bernard; Hyun Kim; Malolan S Rajagopalan; Brandon Stone; Umar Salimi; Jean-Claude Rwigema; Michael W Epperly; Hongmei Shen; Julie P Goff; Darcy Franicola; Tracy Dixon; Shaonan Cao; Xichen Zhang; Hong Wang; Donna B Stolz; Joel S Greenberger Journal: In Vivo Date: 2012 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Stephen G Chun; Chen Hu; Hak Choy; Ritsuko U Komaki; Robert D Timmerman; Steven E Schild; Jeffrey A Bogart; Michael C Dobelbower; Walter Bosch; James M Galvin; Vivek S Kavadi; Samir Narayan; Puneeth Iyengar; Clifford G Robinson; Raymond B Wynn; Adam Raben; Mark E Augspurger; Robert M MacRae; Rebecca Paulus; Jeffrey D Bradley Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Christos Moustakis; Oliver Blanck; Fatemeh Ebrahimi Tazehmahalleh; Mark Ka Heng Chan; Iris Ernst; Thomas Krieger; Marciana-Nona Duma; Markus Oechsner; Ute Ganswindt; Christian Heinz; Horst Alheit; Hilbert Blank; Ursula Nestle; Rolf Wiehle; Christine Kornhuber; Christian Ostheimer; Cordula Petersen; Gerhard Pollul; Wolfgang Baus; Georg Altenstein; Eric Beckers; Katrin Jurianz; Florian Sterzing; Matthias Kretschmer; Heinrich Seegenschmiedt; Torsten Maass; Stefan Droege; Ulrich Wolf; Juergen Schoeffler; Uwe Haverkamp; Hans Theodor Eich; Matthias Guckenberger Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2017-05-31 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Steven H Lin; Lu Wang; Bevan Myles; Peter F Thall; Wayne L Hofstetter; Stephen G Swisher; Jaffer A Ajani; James D Cox; Ritsuko Komaki; Zhongxing Liao Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-08-03 Impact factor: 7.038