OBJECTIVE: Several dose metrics in the categories-homogeneity, coverage, conformity and gradient have been proposed in literature for evaluating treatment plan quality. In this study, we applied these metrics to characterize and identify the plan quality metrics that would merit plan quality assessment in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) dose distributions. METHODS: Treatment plans of 90 lung SBRT patients, comprising 91 targets, treated in our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Dose calculations were performed using anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) with heterogeneity correction. A literature review on published plan quality metrics in the categories-coverage, homogeneity, conformity and gradient was performed. For each patient, using dose-volume histogram data, plan quality metric values were quantified and analysed. RESULTS: For the study, the radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) defined plan quality metrics were: coverage (0.90 ± 0.08); homogeneity (1.27 ± 0.07); conformity (1.03 ± 0.07) and gradient (4.40 ± 0.80). Geometric conformity strongly correlated with conformity index (p < 0.0001). Gradient measures strongly correlated with target volume (p < 0.0001). The RTOG lung SBRT protocol advocated conformity guidelines for prescribed dose in all categories were met in ≥94% of cases. The proportion of total lung volume receiving doses of 20 Gy and 5 Gy (V20 and V5) were mean 4.8% (±3.2) and 16.4% (±9.2), respectively. CONCLUSION: Based on our study analyses, we recommend the following metrics as appropriate surrogates for establishing SBRT lung plan quality guidelines-coverage % (ICRU 62), conformity (CN or CIPaddick) and gradient (R50%). Furthermore, we strongly recommend that RTOG lung SBRT protocols adopt either CN or CIPadddick in place of prescription isodose to target volume ratio for conformity index evaluation. Advances in knowledge: Our study metrics are valuable tools for establishing lung SBRT plan quality guidelines.
OBJECTIVE: Several dose metrics in the categories-homogeneity, coverage, conformity and gradient have been proposed in literature for evaluating treatment plan quality. In this study, we applied these metrics to characterize and identify the plan quality metrics that would merit plan quality assessment in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) dose distributions. METHODS: Treatment plans of 90 lung SBRT patients, comprising 91 targets, treated in our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Dose calculations were performed using anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) with heterogeneity correction. A literature review on published plan quality metrics in the categories-coverage, homogeneity, conformity and gradient was performed. For each patient, using dose-volume histogram data, plan quality metric values were quantified and analysed. RESULTS: For the study, the radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) defined plan quality metrics were: coverage (0.90 ± 0.08); homogeneity (1.27 ± 0.07); conformity (1.03 ± 0.07) and gradient (4.40 ± 0.80). Geometric conformity strongly correlated with conformity index (p < 0.0001). Gradient measures strongly correlated with target volume (p < 0.0001). The RTOG lung SBRT protocol advocated conformity guidelines for prescribed dose in all categories were met in ≥94% of cases. The proportion of total lung volume receiving doses of 20 Gy and 5 Gy (V20 and V5) were mean 4.8% (±3.2) and 16.4% (±9.2), respectively. CONCLUSION: Based on our study analyses, we recommend the following metrics as appropriate surrogates for establishing SBRT lung plan quality guidelines-coverage % (ICRU 62), conformity (CN or CIPaddick) and gradient (R50%). Furthermore, we strongly recommend that RTOG lung SBRT protocols adopt either CN or CIPadddick in place of prescription isodose to target volume ratio for conformity index evaluation. Advances in knowledge: Our study metrics are valuable tools for establishing lung SBRT plan quality guidelines.
Authors: Robert Timmerman; Rebecca Paulus; James Galvin; Jeffrey Michalski; William Straube; Jeffrey Bradley; Achilles Fakiris; Andrea Bezjak; Gregory Videtic; David Johnstone; Jack Fowler; Elizabeth Gore; Hak Choy Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-03-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Linda X Hong; Viswanathan Shankar; Jin Shen; Hsiang-Chi Kuo; Dinesh Mynampati; Ravindra Yaparpalvi; Lee Goddard; Amar Basavatia; Jana Fox; Madhur Garg; Shalom Kalnicki; Wolfgang A Tomé Journal: Med Dosim Date: 2014-12-11 Impact factor: 1.482
Authors: Charles S Mayo; Linda Ding; Anthony Addesa; Sidney Kadish; T J Fitzgerald; Richard Moser Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-06 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michelle B Rokni; Kelli B Pointer; Jonathan George; Jason J Luke; Steven J Chmura; Gage Redler Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2021-02-24 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Lauren E Colbert; Neal Rebueno; Shalini Moningi; Sam Beddar; Gabriel O Sawakuchi; Joseph M Herman; Albert C Koong; Prajnan Das; Emma B Holliday; Eugene J Koay; Cullen M Taniguchi Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-10-23