PURPOSE: Understanding the relationship between normal tissue dose and delayed radiation toxicity is an important component of developing more effective radiation therapy. Late outcome data are generally available only for patients who have undergone 2-dimensional (2D) treatment plans. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of 3D normal tissue dosimetry derived from reconstructed 2D treatment plans in Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three-dimensional lung, heart, and breast volumes were reconstructed from 2D planning radiographs for HL patients who received mediastinal radiation therapy. For each organ, a reference 3D organ was modified with patient-specific structural information, using deformable image processing software. Radiation therapy plans were reconstructed by applying treatment parameters obtained from patient records to the reconstructed 3D volumes. For each reconstructed organ mean dose (Dmean) and volumes covered by at least 5 Gy (V5) and 20 Gy (V20) were calculated. This process was performed for 15 patients who had both 2D and 3D planning data available to compare the reconstructed normal tissue doses with those derived from the primary CT planning data and also for 10 historically treated patients with only 2D imaging available. RESULTS: For patients with 3D planning data, the normal tissue doses could be reconstructed accurately using 2D planning data. Median differences in Dmean between reconstructed and actual plans were 0.18 Gy (lungs), -0.15 Gy (heart), and 0.30 Gy (breasts). Median difference in V5 and V20 were less than 2% for each organ. Reconstructed 3D dosimetry was substantially higher in historical mantle-field treatments than contemporary involved-field mediastinal treatments: average Dmean values were 15.2 Gy vs 10.6 Gy (lungs), 27.0 Gy vs 14.3 Gy (heart), and 8.0 Gy vs 3.2 Gy (breasts). CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional reconstruction of absorbed dose to organs at risk can be estimated accurately many years after exposure by using limited 2D data. Compared to contemporary involved-field treatments, normal tissue doses were significantly higher in historical mantle-field treatments. These methods build capacity to quantify the relationship between 3D normal tissue dose and observed late effects.
PURPOSE: Understanding the relationship between normal tissue dose and delayed radiation toxicity is an important component of developing more effective radiation therapy. Late outcome data are generally available only for patients who have undergone 2-dimensional (2D) treatment plans. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of 3D normal tissue dosimetry derived from reconstructed 2D treatment plans in Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three-dimensional lung, heart, and breast volumes were reconstructed from 2D planning radiographs for HLpatients who received mediastinal radiation therapy. For each organ, a reference 3D organ was modified with patient-specific structural information, using deformable image processing software. Radiation therapy plans were reconstructed by applying treatment parameters obtained from patient records to the reconstructed 3D volumes. For each reconstructed organ mean dose (Dmean) and volumes covered by at least 5 Gy (V5) and 20 Gy (V20) were calculated. This process was performed for 15 patients who had both 2D and 3D planning data available to compare the reconstructed normal tissue doses with those derived from the primary CT planning data and also for 10 historically treated patients with only 2D imaging available. RESULTS: For patients with 3D planning data, the normal tissue doses could be reconstructed accurately using 2D planning data. Median differences in Dmean between reconstructed and actual plans were 0.18 Gy (lungs), -0.15 Gy (heart), and 0.30 Gy (breasts). Median difference in V5 and V20 were less than 2% for each organ. Reconstructed 3D dosimetry was substantially higher in historical mantle-field treatments than contemporary involved-field mediastinal treatments: average Dmean values were 15.2 Gy vs 10.6 Gy (lungs), 27.0 Gy vs 14.3 Gy (heart), and 8.0 Gy vs 3.2 Gy (breasts). CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional reconstruction of absorbed dose to organs at risk can be estimated accurately many years after exposure by using limited 2D data. Compared to contemporary involved-field treatments, normal tissue doses were significantly higher in historical mantle-field treatments. These methods build capacity to quantify the relationship between 3D normal tissue dose and observed late effects.
Authors: Daniel Gasic; Per Munck Af Rosenschöld; Ivan R Vogelius; Maja V Maraldo; Marianne C Aznar; Karsten Nysom; Thomas Björk-Eriksson; Søren M Bentzen; Nils Patrik Brodin Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Ziyuan Wang; Marco Virgolin; Peter A N Bosman; Koen F Crama; Brian V Balgobind; Arjan Bel; Tanja Alderliesten Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2020-02-03
Authors: Kekoa Taparra; Scott C Lester; W Scott Harmsen; Molly Petersen; Ryan K Funk; Miran J Blanchard; Phillip Young; Joerg Herrmann; Ashley Hunzeker; Heather Schultz; Cynthia McCollough; Alexandria Tasson; Shuai Leng; James A Martenson; Thomas J Whitaker; Eric Williamson; Nadia N Laack Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2020-09-04
Authors: Rachel Zhou; Angela Ng; Louis S Constine; Marilyn Stovall; Gregory T Armstrong; Joseph P Neglia; Debra L Friedman; Kara Kelly; Thomas J FitzGerald; David C Hodgson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Nicola S Russell; Inge M Krul; Anna M van Eggermond; Berthe M P Aleman; Rosie Cooke; Susanne Kuiper; Steven D Allen; Matthew G Wallis; Damien Llanas; Ibrahima Diallo; Florent de Vathaire; Susan A Smith; Michael Hauptmann; Annegien Broeks; Anthony J Swerdlow; Flora E Van Leeuwen Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-10-24
Authors: Nicolas Waespe; Sven Strebel; Tiago Nava; Chakradhara Rao S Uppugunduri; Denis Marino; Veneranda Mattiello; Maria Otth; Fabienne Gumy-Pause; André O Von Bueren; Frederic Baleydier; Luzius Mader; Adrian Spoerri; Claudia E Kuehni; Marc Ansari Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Ziyuan Wang; Marco Virgolin; Brian V Balgobind; Irma W E M van Dijk; Susan A Smith; Rebecca M Howell; Matthew M Mille; Choonsik Lee; Choonik Lee; Cécile M Ronckers; Peter A N Bosman; Arjan Bel; Tanja Alderliesten Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-07-04
Authors: John D Groarke; Sanjay Divakaran; Anju Nohria; Joseph H Killoran; Sharmila Dorbala; Ruth M Dunne; Jon Hainer; Viviany R Taqueti; Ron Blankstein; Harvey J Mamon; Marcelo F Di Carli Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2020-07-20 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Lindsay M Morton; Anthony J Swerdlow; Michael Schaapveld; Safaa Ramadan; David C Hodgson; John Radford; Flora E van Leeuwen Journal: EJC Suppl Date: 2014-05-29