SU‐FF‐T‐118: Improvements to the Histogram Analysis in Radiation Therapy (HART) Open‐Source Software System

Pyakuryal, Anil; Myint, K; Gopalakrishnan, Mahesh; Jang, Sung Jun; Sathiaseelan, V.; Logemann, Jerilyn A.; Mittal, Bharat B.

doi:10.1118/1.3181592

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To identify the most balanced plan in terms of both PTV coverage and OAR sparing, we used the quality factor (QF) to evaluate the quality of each treatment plan [30]. This measurement takes into account all of the PTV and OAR indices used in this study, including the PITV, CI, HI, TCI, MHI, CN, and COSI.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Treatment plan comparison of linac step and shoot, tomotherapy, rapidarc, and proton therapy for prostate cancer by using the dosimetrical and the biological indices

Lee

Cao

Chang

et al. 2015

Journal of the Korean Physical Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to use various dosimetrical indices to determine the best IMRT modality technique for treating patients with prostate cancer. Ten patients with prostate cancer were included in this study. Intensity modulated radiation therapy plans were designed to include different modalities, including the linac step and shoot, Tomotherapy, RapidArc, and Proton systems. Various dosimetrical indices, like the prescription isodose to target volume (PITV) ratio, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), target coverage index (TCI), modified dose homogeneity index (MHI), conformation number (CN), critical organ scoring index (COSI), and quality factor (QF) were determined to compare the different treatment plans. Biological indices such as the generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD), based tumor control probability (TCP), and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were also calculated and used to compare the treatment plans. The RapidArc plan attained better PTV coverage, as evidenced by its superior PITV, CI, TCI, MHI, and CN values. Regarding OARs, proton therapy exhibited superior dose sparing for the rectum and bowel in low dose volumes, whereas the Tomotherapy and RapidArc plans achieved better dose sparing in high dose volumes. The QF scores showed no significant difference among these plans (p=0.701). The average TCPs for prostate tumors in the RapidArc, Linac, and Proton plans were higher than the average TCP for Tomotherapy (98.79%, 98.76%, and 98.75% vs. 98.70%, respectively). Regarding the rectum NTCP, RapidArc showed the most favorable result (0.09%), whereas Linac resulted in the best bladder NTCP (0.08%).[22]. Similarly, Cotter et al. compared proton radiotherapy versus IMRT for pediatric prostate rhabdomyosarcoma. This study provides evidence of significant dose savings to normal structures with proton radiotherapy compared to IMRT [19]. As described above, several studies have compared the results of various IMRT delivery techniques. However, studies comparing prostate cancer outcomes for treatment plans using the Linac step and shoot technique, Tomotherapy, RapidArc, or proton modalities are limited.The purpose of this study was thus to determine the best modality out of four possible modalities for treating patients with prostate cancer. To this end, we compared the dosimetric physical indices, EUDbased TCP scores, and EUD-based NTCP scores for different IMRT plans used to treat ten different patients with prostate cancer.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this study, a weighting factor of 1 was used for all separate indices. Thus, the QF was mainly used to compare the conformity of plans throughout the various trials of a treatment [30].…”

Section: E2 Quality Factor (Qf)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment plan comparison of linac step and shoot, tomotherapy, rapidarc, and proton therapy for prostate cancer by using the dosimetrical and the biological indices

Lee

Cao

Chang

et al. 2015

Journal of the Korean Physical Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this study, we used a weighting factor of 1 for all separate indices. Thus, QF was mainly used to compare the conformity of plans in the various trials of a treatment [35].…”

Section: Treatment Plan Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimized planning target volume margin in helical tomotherapy for prostate cancer: Is there a preferred method?

Cao

Lee

Chang

et al. 2015

Journal of the Korean Physical Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To compare the dosimetrical differences between plans generated by helical tomotherapy using 2D or 3D margining technique in in prostate cancer. Ten prostate cancer patients were included in this study. For 2D plans, planning target volume (PTV) was created by adding 5 mm (lateral/anteriorposterior) to clinical target volume (CTV). For 3D plans, 5 mm margin was added not only in lateral/anterior-posterior, but also in superior-inferior to CTV. Various dosimetrical indices, including the prescription isodose to target volume (PITV) ratio, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), target coverage index (TCI), modified dose homogeneity index (MHI), conformation number (CN), critical organ scoring index (COSI), and quality factor (QF) were determined to compare the different treatment plans.Differences between 2D and 3D PTV indices were not significant except for CI (p = 0.023). 3D margin plans (11195 MUs) resulted in higher (13.0%) monitor units than 2D margin plans (9728 MUs).There were no significant differences in any OARs between the 2D and 3D plans. Overall, the average 2D plan dose was slightly lower than the 3D plan dose. Compared to the 2D plan, the 3D plan increased average treatment time by 1.5 minutes; however, this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.082). We confirmed that 2D and 3D margin plans are not significantly different with regard to various dosimetric indices such as PITV, CI, and HI for PTV, and OARs with tomotherapy.

show abstract

SU‐FF‐T‐118: Improvements to the Histogram Analysis in Radiation Therapy (HART) Open‐Source Software System

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Treatment plan comparison of linac step and shoot, tomotherapy, rapidarc, and proton therapy for prostate cancer by using the dosimetrical and the biological indices

Treatment plan comparison of linac step and shoot, tomotherapy, rapidarc, and proton therapy for prostate cancer by using the dosimetrical and the biological indices

Optimized planning target volume margin in helical tomotherapy for prostate cancer: Is there a preferred method?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About