Email this article 
Post a Comment 
A prospective study of OAR volume variations between two different treatment planning systems in radiotherapy
Abstract
Purpose: It has been seen that there is a clinically significant variation in the volume calculated across different planning systems for the same digital imaging and communication (DICOM) contours.The purpose of this study is to investigate the difference in volumes of organs at risk when the structure sets were exported from the Eclipse ((Palo Alto, USA Version 10.0) to XIO CMS (Electa, Crawley, UK Version 4.40.00) treatment planning system (TPS) and identify how the differences occur.
Methods: We prospectively analyzed the volumes of organs at risk from computerized tomography (CT) data of 54 patients. Head and neck and brain tumors were taken for this study and contoured on Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) after importing images from CT. These contoured images were then exported using radiotherapy DICOM transfer facility to XIO CMS planning system and compared the contoured volumes with Eclipse TPS structured volumes.
Results: Our analysis showed that the differences in calculated volumes of the contours for the patients between the two planning systems can be large. Mixed results are shown for different organs with the absolute volume difference ranging from -0.25 cc to 319.73 cc. These results clearly shown that the two TPS interprets the contours differently when calculating the volume, and there is a closer match with the theoretical calculated volumes with XIO CMS calculated volumes.
Conclusion: Observed discrepancies were consistent between the two planning systems. This impact of contouring variability could play a role on plan quality metrics which is used as criteria for clinical trial protocol compliance.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Umegaki Y. Development of computer systems for radiotherapy of cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2010; 40:e65-82.
Tsien KC. The application of automatic computing machines to radiation treatment planning. Br J Radiol 1955; 28:432-9.
Dowsett RJ, Galvin JM, Cheng E, et al. Contouring structures for 3-dimensional treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1992; 22:1083-8.
Drzymala RE, Mohan R, Brewster L, et al. Dose-volume histograms. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1991; 21:71-8.
Thompson RF. An R Package for Analysis of Dose-Volume Histogram and Three-Dimensional Structural Data. Journal of Radiation Oncology Informatics 2014: 6; 98-110.
Emami B, Lyman J, Brown A, et al. Tolerance of normal tissue to therapeutic irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1991; 21:109-22.
Marks LB, Yorke ED, Jackson A, et al. Use of normal tissue complication probability models in the clinic. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 76:10-9.
Ackerly T, Andrews J, Ball D, et al. Discrepancies in volume calculations between different radiotherapy treatment planning systems. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 2003; 26:91-3.
Zhu M, Bzdusek K, Brink C, et al. Multi-institutional quantitative evaluation and clinical validation of Smart Probabilistic Image Contouring Engine (SPICE) autosegmentation of target structures and normal tissues on computer tomography images in the head and neck, thorax, liver, and male pelvis areas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013; 87:809-16.
Breunig J, Hernandez S, Lin J, et al. A system for continual quality improvement of normal tissue delineation for radiation therapy treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 83:e703-8.
Nelms BE, Tomé WA, Robinson G, Wheeler J. Variations in the contouring of organs at risk: test case from a patient with oropharyngeal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 82:368-78.
International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements: Prescribing, recording, and reporting photon beam therapy (supplement to ICRU report 50). Bethesda; ICRU; 1999.
Collier DC, Burnett SS, Amin M, et al. Assessment of consistency in contouring of normal-tissue anatomic structures. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2003; 4:17-24.
Young T, Som S, Sathiakumar C, Holloway L. An investigation into positron emission tomography contouring methods across two treatment planning systems. Med Dosim 2013; 38:60-5.
Prabhakar R, Rath GK, Haresh KP, et al. A study on the tumor volume computation between different 3D treatment planning systems in radiotherapy. J Cancer Res Ther 2011; 7:168-73.
Raya SP, Udupa JK. Shape-based interpolation of multidimensional objects. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1990; 9:32-42.
Jena R, Kirkby NF, Burton KE, et al. A novel algorithm for the morphometric assessment of radiotherapy treatment planning volumes. Br J Radiol 2010; 83:44-51.
Van Dyk J, Barnett RB, Cygler JE, Shragge PC. Commissioning and quality assurance of treatment planning computers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993; 26:261-73.
Fraass B, Doppke K, Hunt M, et al. American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning. Med Phys 1998; 25:1773-829.
Craig T, Brochu D, Van Dyk J. A quality assurance phantom for three-dimensional radiation treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999; 44:955-66.
Lecchi M, Fossati P, Elisei F, et al. Current concepts on imaging in radiotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008; 35:821-37.
Kessler ML, Li K. Image Fusion for Conformal Radiotherapy. AAPM. 2001
https://www.aapm.org/meetings/2001AM/pdf/7213-95766.pdf
Swiss Society for Radiobiology and Medical Physics (SGSMP/SSRPM/SSRFM) SGSMP Recommendation No 7 Quality control of treatment planning systems for teletherapy 1997. ISBN 3-908125-23-5
Pyakuryal A, Myint WK, Gopalakrishnan M, et al. A computational tool for the efficient analysis of dose-volume histograms from radiation therapy treatment plans. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2010; 11:3013.
Ebert MA, Haworth A, Kearvell R, et al. Comparison of DVH data from multiple radiotherapy treatment planning systems. Phys Med Biol 2010; 55:N337-46.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14319/ijcto.33.6
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