BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Physical 3D treatment planning provides a pool of parameters describing dose distributions. It is often useful to define conformal indices to enable quicker evaluation. However, the application of individual indices is controversial and not always effective. The aim of this study was to design a quick check of dose distributions based on several indices detecting underdosages within planning target volumes (PTVs) and overdosages in normal tissue. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dose distributions of 215 cancer patients were considered. Treatment modalities used were three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), radiosurgery, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) and tomotherapy. The volumes recommended in ICRU 50 and 83 were used for planning and six conformation and homogeneity indices were selected: CI, CN, CICRU, COV, C∆, and HI. These were based on the PTV, the partial volume covered by the prescribed isodose (PI; PTVPI), the treated volume (TVPI), near maximum D2 and near minimum D98. Results were presented as a hexagon-the corners of which represent the values of the indices-and a modified test function F (Rosenbrock's function) was calculated. Results refer to clinical examples and mean values, in order to allow evaluation of the power of F and hexagon-based decision support procedures in detail and in general. RESULTS: IMAT and tomotherapy showed the best values for the indices and the lowest standard deviation followed by static IMRT. DCRT and radiosurgery (e.g. CN: IMAT 0.85 ± 0.06; tomotherapy 0.84 ± 0.06; IMRT 0.83 ± 0.07; 3DCRT 0.65 ± 0.08; radiosurgery 0.64 ± 0.11). In extreme situations, not all indices reflected the situation correctly. Over- and underdosing of PTV and normal tissue could be qualitatively assessed from the distortion of the hexagon in graphic analysis. Tomotherapy, IMRT, IMAT, 3DCRT and radiosurgery showed increasingly distorted hexagons, the type of distortion indicating exposure of normal tissue volumes. The calculated F values correlated with these observations. CONCLUSION: An evaluation of dose distributions cannot be based on a single conformal index. A solution could be the use of several indices presented as a hexagonal graphic and/or as a test function.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Physical 3D treatment planning provides a pool of parameters describing dose distributions. It is often useful to define conformal indices to enable quicker evaluation. However, the application of individual indices is controversial and not always effective. The aim of this study was to design a quick check of dose distributions based on several indices detecting underdosages within planning target volumes (PTVs) and overdosages in normal tissue. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dose distributions of 215 cancerpatients were considered. Treatment modalities used were three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), radiosurgery, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) and tomotherapy. The volumes recommended in ICRU 50 and 83 were used for planning and six conformation and homogeneity indices were selected: CI, CN, CICRU, COV, C∆, and HI. These were based on the PTV, the partial volume covered by the prescribed isodose (PI; PTVPI), the treated volume (TVPI), near maximum D2 and near minimum D98. Results were presented as a hexagon-the corners of which represent the values of the indices-and a modified test function F (Rosenbrock's function) was calculated. Results refer to clinical examples and mean values, in order to allow evaluation of the power of F and hexagon-based decision support procedures in detail and in general. RESULTS: IMAT and tomotherapy showed the best values for the indices and the lowest standard deviation followed by static IMRT. DCRT and radiosurgery (e.g. CN: IMAT 0.85 ± 0.06; tomotherapy 0.84 ± 0.06; IMRT 0.83 ± 0.07; 3DCRT 0.65 ± 0.08; radiosurgery 0.64 ± 0.11). In extreme situations, not all indices reflected the situation correctly. Over- and underdosing of PTV and normal tissue could be qualitatively assessed from the distortion of the hexagon in graphic analysis. Tomotherapy, IMRT, IMAT, 3DCRT and radiosurgery showed increasingly distorted hexagons, the type of distortion indicating exposure of normal tissue volumes. The calculated F values correlated with these observations. CONCLUSION: An evaluation of dose distributions cannot be based on a single conformal index. A solution could be the use of several indices presented as a hexagonal graphic and/or as a test function.
Authors: J L Nakamura; L J Verhey; V Smith; P L Petti; K R Lamborn; D A Larson; W M Wara; M W McDermott; P K Sneed Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Georgina Fröhlich; Péter Agoston; József Lövey; András Somogyi; János Fodor; Csaba Polgár; Tibor Major Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2010-06-24 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: G Z Gong; Y Yin; L G Xing; Y J Guo; T Liu; J Chen; J Lu; C Ma; T Sun; T Bai; G Zhang; R Wang Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-02-08 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Sergiu Scobioala; Christopher Kittel; Philipp Niermann; Heidi Wolters; Katharina Helene Susek; Uwe Haverkamp; Hans Theodor Eich Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2018-05-31 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: J Kriz; C Baues; R Engenhart-Cabillic; U Haverkamp; K Herfarth; P Lukas; H Schmidberger; S Marnitz-Schulze; M Fuchs; A Engert; H T Eich Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2016-09-27 Impact factor: 3.621
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: Alexander Venjakob; Michael Oertel; Dominik Alexander Hering; Christos Moustakis; Uwe Haverkamp; Hans Theodor Eich Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2020-10-17 Impact factor: 3.621