Ganeshkumar Patel1, Abhijit Mandal1, Sunil Choudhary1, Ritusha Mishra1, Ravindra Shende2. 1. Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Medicine, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India. 2. Department of Radiotherapy, Balco Medical Center, New Raipur, Sector 36, Raipur, Chattisgarh 493661, India.
Abstract
AIM: A systemic review and analysis of evolution journey of indices, such as conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI) and gradient index (GI), described in the literature. BACKGROUND: Modern radiotherapy techniques like VMAT, SRS and SBRT produce highly conformal plans and provide better critical structure and normal tissue sparing. These treatment techniques can generate a number of competitive plans for the same patients with different dose distributions. Therefore, indices like CI, HI and GI serve as complementary tools in addition to visual slice by slice isodose verification while plan evaluation. Reliability and accuracy of these indices have been tested in the past and found shortcomings and benefits when compared to one another. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Potentially relevant studies published after 1993 were identified through a pubmed and web of science search using words "conformity index", "Homogeneity index", "Gradient index"," Stereotactic radiosurgery"," stereotactic Body radiotherapy" "complexity metrics" and "plan evaluation index". Combinations of words "plan evaluation index conformity index" were also searched as were bibliographies of downloaded papers. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Mathematical definitions of plan evaluation indices modified with time. CI definitions presented by various authors tested at their own and could not be generalized. Those mathematical definitions of CI which take into account OAR sparing grant more confidence in plan evaluation. Gradient index emerged as a significant plan evaluation index in addition to CI whereas homogeneity index losing its credibility. Biological index base plan evaluation is becoming popular and may replace or alter the role of dosimetrical indices.
AIM: A systemic review and analysis of evolution journey of indices, such as conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI) and gradient index (GI), described in the literature. BACKGROUND: Modern radiotherapy techniques like VMAT, SRS and SBRT produce highly conformal plans and provide better critical structure and normal tissue sparing. These treatment techniques can generate a number of competitive plans for the same patients with different dose distributions. Therefore, indices like CI, HI and GI serve as complementary tools in addition to visual slice by slice isodose verification while plan evaluation. Reliability and accuracy of these indices have been tested in the past and found shortcomings and benefits when compared to one another. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Potentially relevant studies published after 1993 were identified through a pubmed and web of science search using words "conformity index", "Homogeneity index", "Gradient index"," Stereotactic radiosurgery"," stereotactic Body radiotherapy" "complexity metrics" and "plan evaluation index". Combinations of words "plan evaluation index conformity index" were also searched as were bibliographies of downloaded papers. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Mathematical definitions of plan evaluation indices modified with time. CI definitions presented by various authors tested at their own and could not be generalized. Those mathematical definitions of CI which take into account OAR sparing grant more confidence in plan evaluation. Gradient index emerged as a significant plan evaluation index in addition to CI whereas homogeneity index losing its credibility. Biological index base plan evaluation is becoming popular and may replace or alter the role of dosimetrical indices.
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: X Allen Li; Markus Alber; Joseph O Deasy; Andrew Jackson; Kyung-Wook Ken Jee; Lawrence B Marks; Mary K Martel; Charles Mayo; Vitali Moiseenko; Alan E Nahum; Andrzej Niemierko; Vladimir A Semenenko; Ellen D Yorke Journal: Med Phys Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 4.071
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