Comparison of different calculation indexes with dose volume histogram parameters for evaluation of radiation treatment plans in gynecologic malignancies

Q4 Health Professions
Aysun Inal, E. Duman, E. Ozkan
{"title":"Comparison of different calculation indexes with dose volume histogram parameters for evaluation of radiation treatment plans in gynecologic malignancies","authors":"Aysun Inal, E. Duman, E. Ozkan","doi":"10.18869/ACADPUB.IJRR.18.3.477","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: We aimed to investigate the accordance of Critical Organ Scoring Index (COSI), Conformity Index (CI) and Normal Tissue Complication Probability (NTCP) parameters with Dose Volume Histograms (DVH) used for evaluation of 3 different pelvic radiotherapy plans. Materials and Methods: Ten gynecologic carcinoma patients who underwent adjuvant radiotherapy were enrolled in this study. Treatment plans were created with conformal treatment planning (3DCRT) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to a total dose of 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions. Initially, volume related dose evaluation was done via DVH. Subsequently, HI, CI, COSI and NTCP for selected normal tissues were calculated for each plan and compared with DVH parameters. Finally, a graphical demonstration was evaluated to see if the results were in accordance with DVH. Results: CI results were statistically significant in favor of IMRT (p<0.001). Rectum V40Gy decreased with 9IMRT compared to 3DCRT and 7IMRT (p=0.013 and p=0.013). V40Gy for bladder was also lower with 9IMRT compared with 3DCRT and 7IMRT (p=0.005 and p=0.012). COSI calculations revealed better small intestine protection in IMRT plans similar with DVH (p=0.005 and p=0.022). Femoral heads were better protected with IMRT plans were better compared to 3DCRT in NTCP calculations (p=0.002). Normal tissue protection was worst with 3DCRT via both DVH and COSI evaluations (p=0.001 and p<0.001 respectively). Conclusion: Using the indexes in this study to decide the most appropriate plan among multiple treatment plans in gynecologic cancer patients will be timesaving and easier in comparison with evaluating the DVH of every alternative plan.","PeriodicalId":14498,"journal":{"name":"Iranian Journal of Radiation Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Iranian Journal of Radiation Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18869/ACADPUB.IJRR.18.3.477","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: We aimed to investigate the accordance of Critical Organ Scoring Index (COSI), Conformity Index (CI) and Normal Tissue Complication Probability (NTCP) parameters with Dose Volume Histograms (DVH) used for evaluation of 3 different pelvic radiotherapy plans. Materials and Methods: Ten gynecologic carcinoma patients who underwent adjuvant radiotherapy were enrolled in this study. Treatment plans were created with conformal treatment planning (3DCRT) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to a total dose of 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions. Initially, volume related dose evaluation was done via DVH. Subsequently, HI, CI, COSI and NTCP for selected normal tissues were calculated for each plan and compared with DVH parameters. Finally, a graphical demonstration was evaluated to see if the results were in accordance with DVH. Results: CI results were statistically significant in favor of IMRT (p<0.001). Rectum V40Gy decreased with 9IMRT compared to 3DCRT and 7IMRT (p=0.013 and p=0.013). V40Gy for bladder was also lower with 9IMRT compared with 3DCRT and 7IMRT (p=0.005 and p=0.012). COSI calculations revealed better small intestine protection in IMRT plans similar with DVH (p=0.005 and p=0.022). Femoral heads were better protected with IMRT plans were better compared to 3DCRT in NTCP calculations (p=0.002). Normal tissue protection was worst with 3DCRT via both DVH and COSI evaluations (p=0.001 and p<0.001 respectively). Conclusion: Using the indexes in this study to decide the most appropriate plan among multiple treatment plans in gynecologic cancer patients will be timesaving and easier in comparison with evaluating the DVH of every alternative plan.
不同计算指标与剂量-体积直方图参数在妇科恶性肿瘤放射治疗方案评价中的比较
背景:探讨3种不同盆腔放疗方案中,关键器官评分指数(COSI)、符合性指数(CI)和正常组织并发症概率(NTCP)参数与剂量-体积直方图(DVH)的一致性。材料与方法:选取10例接受辅助放疗的妇科癌患者作为研究对象。治疗方案采用适形治疗计划(3DCRT)和调强放疗(IMRT),总剂量为50.4 Gy,分28个分量。最初,通过DVH进行体积相关剂量评估。随后计算各方案选取正常组织的HI、CI、COSI和NTCP,并与DVH参数进行比较。最后,通过图形演示来评估结果是否符合DVH。结果:CI结果支持IMRT有统计学意义(p<0.001)。与3DCRT和7IMRT相比,9IMRT组直肠V40Gy降低(p=0.013和p=0.013)。9IMRT组膀胱V40Gy也低于3DCRT和7IMRT组(p=0.005和p=0.012)。COSI计算显示,与DVH相似的IMRT计划中小肠保护效果更好(p=0.005和p=0.022)。在NTCP计算中,IMRT方案对股骨头的保护优于3DCRT方案(p=0.002)。通过DVH和COSI评估,3DCRT对正常组织的保护最差(p=0.001和p<0.001)。结论:利用本研究指标在妇科肿瘤患者的多种治疗方案中确定最合适的方案,与评估每种备选方案的DVH相比,节省时间,更容易。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Iranian Journal of Radiation Research
Iranian Journal of Radiation Research RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
0.67
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Iranian Journal of Radiation Research (IJRR) publishes original scientific research and clinical investigations related to radiation oncology, radiation biology, and Medical and health physics. The clinical studies submitted for publication include experimental studies of combined modality treatment, especially chemoradiotherapy approaches, and relevant innovations in hyperthermia, brachytherapy, high LET irradiation, nuclear medicine, dosimetry, tumor imaging, radiation treatment planning, radiosensitizers, and radioprotectors. All manuscripts must pass stringent peer-review and only papers that are rated of high scientific quality are accepted.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信