Visualization of a variety of possible dosimetric outcomes in radiation therapy using dose-volume histogram bands.

PURPOSE: Dose-volume histograms (DVH) are the most common tool used in the appraisal of the quality of a clinical treatment plan. However, when delivery uncertainties are present, the DVH may not always accurately describe the dose distribution actually delivered to the patient. We present a method, based on DVH formalism, to visualize the variability in the expected dosimetric outcome of a treatment plan.
METHODS: For a case of chordoma of the cervical spine, we compared 2 intensity modulated proton therapy plans. Treatment plan A was optimized based on dosimetric objectives alone (ie, desired target coverage, normal tissue tolerance). Plan B was created employing a published probabilistic optimization method that considered the uncertainties in patient setup and proton range in tissue. Dose distributions and DVH for both plans were calculated for the nominal delivery scenario, as well as for scenarios representing deviations from the nominal setup, and a systematic error in the estimate of range in tissue. The histograms from various scenarios were combined to create DVH bands to illustrate possible deviations from the nominal plan for the expected magnitude of setup and range errors.
RESULTS: In the nominal scenario, the DVH from plan A showed superior dose coverage, higher dose homogeneity within the target, and improved sparing of the adjacent critical structure. However, when the dose distributions and DVH from plans A and B were recalculated for different error scenarios (eg, proton range underestimation by 3 mm), the plan quality, reflected by DVH, deteriorated significantly for plan A, while plan B was only minimally affected. In the DVH-band representation, plan A produced wider bands, reflecting its higher vulnerability to delivery errors, and uncertainty in the dosimetric outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: The results illustrate that comparison of DVH for the nominal scenario alone does not provide any information about the relative sensitivity of dosimetric outcome to delivery uncertainties. Thus, such comparison may be misleading and may result in the selection of an inferior plan for delivery to a patient. A better-informed decision can be made if additional information about possible dosimetric variability is presented; for example, in the form of DVH bands.