Dosimetric Validation of Physical and Biological Indexes from the Dose-Volume Histogram for Evaluation of 3D-CRT and IMRT Techniques with VMAT Treatment Plan Techniques in Cervical Tumors from In-House Developed Software

Document Type : Original Paper

Authors

1 Thangam Cancer Hospital, Namakkal, Tamilnadu-637001, INDIA. 2. Department of Physics, Jamal Mohamed College (Autonomous), Affiliated to Bharathidasan university, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu-620020, India.

2 Department of Physics, Jamal Mohamed College (Autonomous), Affiliated to Bharathidasan university, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu-620020, India.

3 Department of Medical Physics & Regulatory Affairs, Hind Institute of Medical Sciences, Safedabad, Barabanki-225003, UP, India

4 Thangam Cancer Hospital, Namakkal, Tamilnadu-637001, INDIA.

5 Department of Radiation Oncology, Malnad Hospital & Institute of Oncology, Shimoga-577222, India.

6 Department of Radiation oncology, Acharya Harihar PG Insititute of Cancer, Cuttack-753007, India.

Abstract

Introduction:This study aims to investigate the Normal Tissue Complication Probability (NTCP) and Tumor Control Probability (TCP) of cervical cancer from Niemierko radiobiological model and compared with Lyman-Kutcher-Butcher (LKB) model’s effective volume parameter in three different planning techniques such as 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy (3D-CRT), Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) and Volumetric Arc Therapy (VMAT).
Material and Methods:Twenty patients were selected with Grade II and Grade III and the treatment plan was initially generated for 3D-CRT, IMRT and VMAT. The physical dose from each voxel in radiotherapy treatment planning was extracted through a dose volume histogram (DVH) text file from in-built software developed using python program.  Software was developed by freely available python integration with an integrated Oracle database to store the outcome results with user-friendly graphical user interface for editing the radiological parameter values and viewing the DVH graph. The dosimetricconformalities parameters such as homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) along with radiobiological parameters such as TCP, NTCP and effective volume (Veff) were compared with three different planning techniques.
Results:The IMRT and VMAT dose delivery techniques improve the efficiency of the treatment of cervical cancer with good coverage of target volume as well as low irradiation of Organ at Risk (OARs) compared with 3D-CRT.
Conclusion: There is no significant difference in effective volume for IMRT and VMAT, which proportionally increases with the advanced planning techniques, causes insignificant complication probability to normal tissues. Other conformalities parameters were showing good agreement for all the three techniques.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Lee S, Cao YJ, Kim CY. Physical and Radiobiological Evaluation of Radiotherapy Treatment Plan. In: Nenoi M. Evolution Ionizating Radiation Research, Croatia. 2015; 109-50.
  2. Pyakuryal A, Myint WK, Gopalakrishnan M, S. Jang, Logemann JA, Mittal BB. A computational tool for the efficient analysis of dose-volume histograms for radiation therapy treatment plans. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 2010;11:137–
  3. Kim JS, Yoon MG, Shin JS, Shin EH, Ju SG, Han YY, et al. A Dose Volume Histogram Analyzer Program for External Beam Radiotherapy. Radiat. Oncol. J. 2009;27:240–
  4. Bruzzaniti V, Abate A, Pedrini M, Benassi M, Strigari L. IsoBED: a tool for automatic calculation of biologically equivalent fractionation schedules in radiotherapy using IMRT with a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. 2011;30:1-11.
  5. Gay HA, Niemierko A. A free program for calculating EUD-based NTCP and TCP in external beam radiotherapy. Phys. Medica. 2007;23:115–
  6. Warkentin B, Stavrev P, Stavreva N, Field C, Fallone BG. A TCP-NTCP estimation module using DVHs and known radiobiological models and parameter sets. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 2004;5:50–
  7. Oinam AS, Singh L, Shukla A, Ghoshal S, Kapoor R, Sharma SC. Dose-volume histogram analysis and comparison of different radiobiological models using in-house developed software, J. Med. Phys. 2011;36:220-9.
  8. Pasciuti K, Iaccarino G, Strigari L, Malatesta T, Benassi M, Di Nallo AM, et al. Tissue Heterogeneity in IMRT Dose Calculation for Lung Cancer. Med. Dosim. 2011;36:219–
  9. Kutcher GJ, Burman C, Brewster L, Goitein M, Mohan R. Histogram reduction method for calculating complication probabilities for three-dimensional treatment planning evaluations. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 1991;21:137–
  10. Lee T-F, Chao P-J, Wang H-Y, Hsu H-C, Chang P, Chen W-C. Normal tissue complication probability model parameter estimation for xerostomia in head and neck cancer patients based on scintigraphy and quality of life assessments. BMC Cancer. 2012;12:1-9.
  11. Alfonso JCL, Herrero MA, Núñez L. A dose-volume histogram-based decision-support system for dosimetric comparison of radiotherapy treatment plans, Radiat. Oncol. 2015;10:1-9.
  12. Park YK, Park S, Wu HG, Kim S, A new plan quality index for dose painting radiotherapy. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 2014;15:316–
  13. Kataria T, Sharma K, Subramani V, Karrthick KP, Bisht SS. Homogeneity Index: An objective tool for assessment of conformal radiation treatments, J. Med. Phys. 37 2012;37:207.
  14. Cheung ML, Kan MW, Yeung VT, Poon DM, Kam MK, Lee LK, et al. Analysis of hepatocellular carcinoma stereotactic body radiation therapy dose prescription method using uncomplicated tumor control probability model. Advances in Radiation Oncology. 2021 Sep 1;6(5):100739.
  15. Wu Q, Mohan R, Niemierko A, Schmidt-Ullrich R. Optimization of intensity –modulated radiotherapy plans based on the equivalent uniform dose, Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys.2002;52:224-35.
  16. Marks LB, Yorke ED, Jackson A, Ten Haken RK, Constine LS, Eisbruch A, Bentzen SM, Nam J, Deasy JO. Use of Normal Tissue Complication Probability Models in the Clinic, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 2010;76:S10–
  17. Niemerko A. Reporting and analyzing dose distributions: A concept of equivalent uniform dose. Med Phys. 1997;24:103-10.
  18. Hysing LB, Skorpen TN, Alber M, Fjellsbo LB, Helle SI, Muren LP. On the influence of organ motion on conformal versus intensity-modulated pelvic radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;71:1496 -503.
  19. Roeske JC, Bonta D, Mell LK, Lujan AE, Mundt AJ. A dosimetric analysis of acute gastrointestinal toxicity in women receiving intensity-modulated whole-pelvic radiation therapy. Radiother Oncol. 2003; 69:201-7.
  20. Shaw E, Kline R, Gillin M, Souhami L, Hirschfeld A, Dinapoli R, et al. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group: radiosurgery quality assurance guidelines. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 1993 Dec 1;27(5):1231-9.
  21. ICRU Report 62, Prescribing, Recording and Reporting photon beam therapy (supplement to ICRU Report 50), International Commission on Radiation units and Measurements, Washington, 1999.
  22. Rana S, Cheng C. Radiobiological impact on planning techniques for prostate cancer in terms of tumor control probability and normal tissue complication probability. Ann Med Health Sci Res 2014;4:167-72.
  23. Oknunieff P, Morgan D, Niemierko A, Suit HD. Radiation dose-response of human tumors. Int Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995,32:1227-37.
  24. Thames HD Jr. Withers HR, Peters LJ, Fletcher GH. Changes in early and late radiation responses with altered dose fractionation: implications for dose-survival relationships. Int J Radiat Oncol. Phys. 1982;8:219-26.
  25. Park JY, Lee JY, Chung JB, Choi KS, Kim YL, Park BM, et al. Radiobiological model based bio-anatomical quality assurance in intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer. J Radiat Res. 2012; 53:978-88.
  26. Emami B, Lyman J, Brawn A, Cola L, Goiten M, Munzenrider JE, et al. Tolerance of normal tissue to therapeutic irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991; 21:109-22.
  27. Kutcher GJ, Burman C. Calculation of complication probability factors for non-uniform normal tissue irradiation: The effective volume method gerald. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 1989;16:1623–
  28. Sukhikh ES, Sukhikh LG, Lushnikova PA, Tatarchenko MA, Abdelrahman AR. Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of simultaneous integrated boost and sequential boost of locally advanced cervical cancer. Physica Medica. 2020 May 1;73:83-8.

 

Iranian Journal of Medical Physics
Volume 21, Issue 1 - Serial Number 1
January and February 2024
Pages 16-29

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 16 August 2022
  • Revise Date: 30 January 2023
  • Accept Date: 13 February 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics