Austin M Faught1, Tokihiro Yamamoto2, Richard Castillo3, Edward Castillo4, Jingjing Zhang4, Moyed Miften5, Yevgeniy Vinogradskiy5. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado. Electronic address: austin.faught@ucdenver.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Medical Branch of Galveston, League City, Texas. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, Michigan. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Four-dimensional (4D) computed tomography (CT) ventilation imaging is increasingly being used to calculate lung ventilation and implement functional-guided radiation therapy in clinical trials. There has been little exhaustive work evaluating which dose-function metrics should be used for treatment planning and plan evaluation. The purpose of our study was to evaluate which dose-function metrics best predict for radiation pneumonitis (RP). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Seventy lung cancer patients who underwent 4D CT imaging and pneumonitis grading were assessed. Pretreatment 4D CT scans of each patient were used to calculate ventilation images. We evaluated 3 types of dose-function metrics that combined the patient's 4D CT ventilation image and treatment planning dose distribution: (1) structure-based approaches; (2) image-based approaches using the dose-function histogram; and (3) nonlinear weighting schemes. Log-likelihood methods were used to generate normal tissue complication probability models predicting grade 3 or higher (ie, grade 3+) pneumonitis for all dose-function schemes. The area under the curve (AUC) was used to assess the predictive power of the models. All techniques were compared with normal tissue complication probability models based on traditional, total lung dose metrics. RESULTS: The most predictive models were structure-based approaches that focused on the volume of functional lung receiving ≥20 Gy (AUC, 0.70). Probabilities of grade 3+ RP of 20% and 10% correspond to V20 (percentage of volume receiving ≥20 Gy) to the functional subvolumes of 26.8% and 9.3%, respectively. Imaging-based analysis with the dose-function histogram and nonlinear weighted ventilation values yielded AUCs of 0.66 and 0.67, respectively, when we evaluated the percentage of functionality receiving ≥20 Gy. All dose-function metrics outperformed the traditional dose metrics (mean lung dose, AUC of 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: A full range of dose-function metrics and functional thresholds was examined. The calculated AUC values for the most predictive functional models occupied a narrow range (0.66-0.70), and all showed notable improvements over AUC from traditional lung dose metrics (0.55). Identifying the combinations most predictive of grade 3+ RP provides valuable data to inform the functional-guided radiation therapy process.
PURPOSE: Four-dimensional (4D) computed tomography (CT) ventilation imaging is increasingly being used to calculate lung ventilation and implement functional-guided radiation therapy in clinical trials. There has been little exhaustive work evaluating which dose-function metrics should be used for treatment planning and plan evaluation. The purpose of our study was to evaluate which dose-function metrics best predict for radiation pneumonitis (RP). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Seventy lung cancerpatients who underwent 4D CT imaging and pneumonitis grading were assessed. Pretreatment 4D CT scans of each patient were used to calculate ventilation images. We evaluated 3 types of dose-function metrics that combined the patient's 4D CT ventilation image and treatment planning dose distribution: (1) structure-based approaches; (2) image-based approaches using the dose-function histogram; and (3) nonlinear weighting schemes. Log-likelihood methods were used to generate normal tissue complication probability models predicting grade 3 or higher (ie, grade 3+) pneumonitis for all dose-function schemes. The area under the curve (AUC) was used to assess the predictive power of the models. All techniques were compared with normal tissue complication probability models based on traditional, total lung dose metrics. RESULTS: The most predictive models were structure-based approaches that focused on the volume of functional lung receiving ≥20 Gy (AUC, 0.70). Probabilities of grade 3+ RP of 20% and 10% correspond to V20 (percentage of volume receiving ≥20 Gy) to the functional subvolumes of 26.8% and 9.3%, respectively. Imaging-based analysis with the dose-function histogram and nonlinear weighted ventilation values yielded AUCs of 0.66 and 0.67, respectively, when we evaluated the percentage of functionality receiving ≥20 Gy. All dose-function metrics outperformed the traditional dose metrics (mean lung dose, AUC of 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: A full range of dose-function metrics and functional thresholds was examined. The calculated AUC values for the most predictive functional models occupied a narrow range (0.66-0.70), and all showed notable improvements over AUC from traditional lung dose metrics (0.55). Identifying the combinations most predictive of grade 3+ RP provides valuable data to inform the functional-guided radiation therapy process.
Authors: Joseph M Reinhardt; Kai Ding; Kunlin Cao; Gary E Christensen; Eric A Hoffman; Shalmali V Bodas Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2008-04-12 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Edward Castillo; Richard Castillo; Josue Martinez; Maithili Shenoy; Thomas Guerrero Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2010-01-07 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Konstantin Lavrenkov; Judith A Christian; Mike Partridge; Elena Niotsikou; Gary Cook; Michelle Parker; James L Bedford; Michael Brada Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2007-05-09 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Brian P Yaremko; Thomas M Guerrero; Josue Noyola-Martinez; Rudy Guerra; David G Lege; Linda T Nguyen; Peter A Balter; James D Cox; Ritsuko Komaki Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-03-29 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Yvette Seppenwoolde; Katrien De Jaeger; Liesbeth J Boersma; José S A Belderbos; Joos V Lebesque Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: John Kipritidis; Bilal A Tahir; Guillaume Cazoulat; Michael S Hofman; Shankar Siva; Jason Callahan; Nicholas Hardcastle; Tokihiro Yamamoto; Gary E Christensen; Joseph M Reinhardt; Noriyuki Kadoya; Taylor J Patton; Sarah E Gerard; Isabella Duarte; Ben Archibald-Heeren; Mikel Byrne; Rick Sims; Scott Ramsay; Jeremy T Booth; Enid Eslick; Fiona Hegi-Johnson; Henry C Woodruff; Rob H Ireland; Jim M Wild; Jing Cai; John E Bayouth; Kristy Brock; Paul J Keall Journal: Med Phys Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Ravindra Yaparpalvi; Madhur K Garg; Jin Shen; William R Bodner; Dinesh K Mynampati; Aleiya Gafar; Hsiang-Chi Kuo; Amar K Basavatia; Nitin Ohri; Linda X Hong; Shalom Kalnicki; Wolfgang A Tome Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-01-10 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Yevgeniy Vinogradskiy; Chad G Rusthoven; Leah Schubert; Bernard Jones; Austin Faught; Richard Castillo; Edward Castillo; Laurie E Gaspar; Jennifer Kwak; Timothy Waxweiler; Michele Dougherty; Dexiang Gao; Craig Stevens; Moyed Miften; Brian Kavanagh; Thomas Guerrero; Inga Grills Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Tokihiro Yamamoto; Sven Kabus; Matthieu Bal; Karl Bzdusek; Paul J Keall; Cari Wright; Stanley H Benedict; Megan E Daly Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-05-04 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Daniel Rocky Owen; Phillip S Boonstra; Benjamin L Viglianti; James M Balter; Matthew J Schipper; William C Jackson; Issam El Naqa; Shruti Jolly; Randall K Ten Haken; Feng-Ming Spring Kong; Martha M Matuszak Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038