PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare lung dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters such as mean lung dose (MLD) and the lung volume receiving ≥20 Gy (V20) of commonly used definitions of normal lung in terms of tumor/target subtraction and to determine to what extent they differ in predicting radiation pneumonitis (RP). METHODS AND MATERIALS: One hundred lung cancer patients treated with definitive radiation therapy were assessed. The gross tumor volume (GTV) and clinical planning target volume (PTVc) were defined by the treating physician and dosimetrist. For this study, the clinical target volume (CTV) was defined as GTV with 8-mm uniform expansion, and the PTV was defined as CTV with an 8-mm uniform expansion. Lung DVHs were generated with exclusion of targets: (1) GTV (DVHG); (2) CTV (DVHC); (3) PTV (DVHP); and (4) PTVc (DVHPc). The lung DVHs, V20s, and MLDs from each of the 4 methods were compared, as was their significance in predicting radiation pneumonitis of grade 2 or greater (RP2). RESULTS: There are significant differences in dosimetric parameters among the various definition methods (all Ps<.05). The mean and maximum differences in V20 are 4.4% and 12.6% (95% confidence interval 3.6%-5.1%), respectively. The mean and maximum differences in MLD are 3.3 Gy and 7.5 Gy (95% confidence interval, 1.7-4.8 Gy), respectively. MLDs of all methods are highly correlated with each other and significantly correlated with clinical RP2, although V20s are not. For RP2 prediction, on the receiver operating characteristic curve, MLD from DVHG (MLDG) has a greater area under curve of than MLD from DVHC (MLDC) or DVHP (MLDP). Limiting RP2 to 30%, the threshold is 22.4, 20.6, and 18.8 Gy, for MLDG, MLDC, and MLDP, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The differences in MLD and V20 from various lung definitions are significant. MLD from the GTV exclusion method may be more accurate in predicting clinical significant radiation pneumonitis. Published by Elsevier Inc.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare lung dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters such as mean lung dose (MLD) and the lung volume receiving ≥20 Gy (V20) of commonly used definitions of normal lung in terms of tumor/target subtraction and to determine to what extent they differ in predicting radiation pneumonitis (RP). METHODS AND MATERIALS: One hundred lung cancerpatients treated with definitive radiation therapy were assessed. The gross tumor volume (GTV) and clinical planning target volume (PTVc) were defined by the treating physician and dosimetrist. For this study, the clinical target volume (CTV) was defined as GTV with 8-mm uniform expansion, and the PTV was defined as CTV with an 8-mm uniform expansion. Lung DVHs were generated with exclusion of targets: (1) GTV (DVHG); (2) CTV (DVHC); (3) PTV (DVHP); and (4) PTVc (DVHPc). The lung DVHs, V20s, and MLDs from each of the 4 methods were compared, as was their significance in predicting radiation pneumonitis of grade 2 or greater (RP2). RESULTS: There are significant differences in dosimetric parameters among the various definition methods (all Ps<.05). The mean and maximum differences in V20 are 4.4% and 12.6% (95% confidence interval 3.6%-5.1%), respectively. The mean and maximum differences in MLD are 3.3 Gy and 7.5 Gy (95% confidence interval, 1.7-4.8 Gy), respectively. MLDs of all methods are highly correlated with each other and significantly correlated with clinical RP2, although V20s are not. For RP2 prediction, on the receiver operating characteristic curve, MLD from DVHG (MLDG) has a greater area under curve of than MLD from DVHC (MLDC) or DVHP (MLDP). Limiting RP2 to 30%, the threshold is 22.4, 20.6, and 18.8 Gy, for MLDG, MLDC, and MLDP, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The differences in MLD and V20 from various lung definitions are significant. MLD from the GTV exclusion method may be more accurate in predicting clinical significant radiation pneumonitis. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: B Emami; J Lyman; A Brown; L Coia; M Goitein; J E Munzenrider; B Shank; L J Solin; M Wesson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1991-05-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Lawrence B Marks; Soren M Bentzen; Joseph O Deasy; Feng-Ming Spring Kong; Jeffrey D Bradley; Ivan S Vogelius; Issam El Naqa; Jessica L Hubbs; Joos V Lebesque; Robert D Timmerman; Mary K Martel; Andrew Jackson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Daniel T Chang; Kenneth R Olivier; Christopher G Morris; Chihray Liu; James F Dempsey; Rashmi K Benda; Jatinder R Palta Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-01-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Feng-Ming Kong; James A Hayman; Kent A Griffith; Gregory P Kalemkerian; Douglas Arenberg; Susan Lyons; Andrew Turrisi; Allen Lichter; Benedick Fraass; Avraham Eisbruch; Theodore S Lawrence; Randall K Ten Haken Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-05-02 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: J Armstrong; A Raben; M Zelefsky; M Burt; S Leibel; C Burman; G Kutcher; L Harrison; C Hahn; R Ginsberg; V Rusch; M Kris; Z Fuks Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 1997-07 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: M V Graham; J A Purdy; B Emami; W Harms; W Bosch; M A Lockett; C A Perez Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1999-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Tae Hyun Kim; Kwan Ho Cho; Hong Ryull Pyo; Jin Soo Lee; Jae Ill Zo; Dae Ho Lee; Jong Mog Lee; Hyae Young Kim; Bin Hwangbo; Sung Yong Park; Joo Young Kim; Kyung Hwan Shin; Dae Yong Kim Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-02-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: D Oetzel; P Schraube; F Hensley; G Sroka-Pérez; M Menke; M Flentje Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1995-09-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: M K Martel; R K Ten Haken; M B Hazuka; A T Turrisi; B A Fraass; A S Lichter Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1994-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Peter G Hawkins; Philip S Boonstra; Stephen T Hobson; Jason W D Hearn; James A Hayman; Randall K Ten Haken; Martha M Matuszak; Paul Stanton; Gregory P Kalemkerian; Nithya Ramnath; Theodore S Lawrence; Matthew J Schipper; Feng-Ming Spring Kong; Shruti Jolly Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2017-09-23 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Bing Luan; Young-Sil Yoon; John Le Lay; Klaus H Kaestner; Susan Hedrick; Marc Montminy Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Somayeh Gholami; Francesco Longo; Sara Shahzadeh; Hassan Ali Nedaie; Ryan Sharp; Ali S Meigooni Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2020-09-29
Authors: Zhicheng Jiao; Hongming Li; Ying Xiao; Charu Aggarwal; Maya Galperin-Aizenberg; Daniel Pryma; Charles B Simone; Steven J Feigenberg; Gary D Kao; Yong Fan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-01-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Feng-Ming Spring Kong; Vitali Moiseenko; Jing Zhao; Michael T Milano; Ling Li; Andreas Rimner; Shiva Das; X Allen Li; Moyed Miften; ZhongXing Liao; Mary Martel; Soren M Bentzen; Andrew Jackson; Jimm Grimm; Lawrence B Marks; Ellen Yorke Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 8.013
Authors: Yi Luo; Shruti Jolly; David Palma; Theodore S Lawrence; Huan-Hsin Tseng; Gilmer Valdes; Daniel McShan; Randall K Ten Haken; Issam Ei Naqa Journal: Phys Med Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 3.119