Email this article 
Post a Comment 
A 3D quantitative evaluation for assessing the changes of treatment planning system and irradiation techniques in radiotherapy
Abstract
Purpose: This work proposes and compares two 3D global evaluation methods for assessing the alteration of calculated dose distributions when treatment planning system algorithms or irradiation techniques is modified in radiation therapy.
Methods: The global analysis is based on gamma index (γ) proposed by Low et al.1 and Chi (χ) index proposed by Bakai et al.2. The γ and χ values are signed in order to identify the over and under estimating dosage. The 3D maps, the cumulative Gamma Voxels Histograms (GVHs) and Chi Voxels Histograms (CVHs) were generated using two software. The γ and χ criteria were set to 3 mm for the distance to agreement and 3% for dose. Pearson's Chi-squared test was applied to assess the statistically significance between GVHs and CVHs. We illustrated this method for the change of dose calculation algorithms for lung cancer, and the change of irradiation techniques for breast cancer. For each patient, 2 treatment plans were generated. For the example of change of dose calculation algorithms, a plan 1 was calculated using Pencil Beam Convolution (PBC) algorithm and a plan 2 was calculated using Modified Batho method (PBC-MB). For the example of change of irradiation technique, a plan 1 was calculated using Source Skin Distance SSD technique and a plan 2 was calculated using a single isocenter technique.
Results: The 3D analysis based on γ and χ indexes showed a significant effect on the dosimetric representation in the lung cancer when we change the PBC algorithm to PBC-MB method. The comparison between the two irradiation techniques showed that the single isocenter technique produces a better dose distribution for the treatment of breast cancer. Pearson's Chi-squared test showed that there was no statistically significance between GVHs and CVHs generated by γ and χ indexes, (p > 0.05). The global analysis using 3D for γ and χ indexes confirmed the results obtained from dosimetric analysis.
Conclusion: The methods proposed in this study provide useful tools for radiotherapy to compare two dose distributions obtained using different algorithms or different irradiation techniques. The χ-index was (~190) times faster than γ-index. The χ-index is thus a valuable and more convenient method for 3D global analysis compared with γ-index.
------------------------
Cite this article as: Chaikh A, Giraud JY, Balosso J. A 3D quantitative evaluation for assessing the changes of treatment planning system and irradiation techniques in radiotherapy. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol 2014; 2(3):02033. DOI: 10.14319/ijcto.0203.3
Keywords
References
Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S, Purdy JA. A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys 1998; 25: 656-61.
Bakai A, Alber M, Nusslin F. A revision of the gamma-evaluation concept for the comparison of dose distributions. Phys Med Biol 2003; 48: 3543-53.
Spezi E, Lewis DG. Gamma histograms for radiotherapy plan evaluation. Radiother Oncol 2006; 79:224-30.
The R project for statistical computing. Available from http://www.r-project.org.
Field A. Discovering statistics using SPSS. 3ed. SAGE Publications Ltd, London; 2009.
Ahnesjö A, Aspradakis MM. Dose calculations for external photon beams in radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol 1999; 44: 99-155.
Storchi P, Woudstra E. Calculation of the absorbed dose distribution due to irregularly shaped photon beams using pencil beam kernels derived form basic beam data. Phys Med Biol 1996; 41: 637-56.
Batho HF. Lung corrections in cobalt 60 beam therapy. J Can Assoc Radiol 1964; 15:79-83.
El-Khatib E, Battista JJ. Improved lung dose calculation using tissue-maximum ratios in the Batho correction. Med Phys 1984; 11:279–86.
International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. ICRU Report No. 50: Prescribing, Recording and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy. Bethesda, Maryland 1993.
International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. ICRU Report No. 62: Prescribing, Recording and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy supplement to ICRU Report 50. Bethesda, Maryland 1999.
Nelms BE, Zhen H, Tomé WA. Per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errors. Med Phys 2011; 38: 1037-44.
Chaikh A, Giraud J Y, Balosso J. A method to quantify and assess the dosimetric and clinical impact resulting from the heterogeneity correction in radiotherapy for lung cancer. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol 2014; 2:020110.
Chaikh A, Balosso J, Giraud J-Y. Mise en œuvre de la technique mono-isocentrique dans le traitement du cancer du sein. Cancer/Radiothérapie 2012; 16:526.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14319/ijcto.0203.3
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
International Journal of Cancer Therapy and Oncology (ISSN 2330-4049)
© International Journal of Cancer Therapy and Oncology (IJCTO)
To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the 'ijcto.org' domain to your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.
Number of visits since October, 2013