Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2022
Dosimetric accuracy of three dose calculation algorithms for radiation therapy of in situ non-small cell lung carcinoma.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kolacio Manda Švabić, Rajlić David, Radojčić Milan, Radojčić Đeni Smilović, Obajdin Nevena, Debeljuh Dea Dundara, Jurković Slaven
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Study determines differences in calculated dose distributions for non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSC LC) patients. NSC LC cases were investigated, being the most common lung cancer treated by radiotherapy in our clinical practice.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study of 15 NSCLC patient dose distributions originally calculated using standard superposition (SS) and recalculated using collapsed cone (CC ) and Monte Carlo (MC) based algorithm expressed as dose to medium in medium (MCDm) and dose to water in medium (MCDw,) was performed so that prescribed dose covers at least 99% of the gross target volume (GTV). Statistical analysis was performed for differences of conformity index (CI), heterogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI), dose delivered to 2% of the volume (D2%), mean dose (Dmean) and percentage of volumes covered by prescribed dose (V70Gy). For organs at risk (OARs), Dmean and percentage of volume receiving 20 Gy and 5Gy (V20Gy, V5Gy) were analysed.
RESULTS: Statistically significant difference for GTVs was observed between MCDw and SS algorithm in mean dose only. For planning target volumes (PTVs), statistically significant differences were observed in prescribed dose coverage for CC, MCDm and MCDw. The differences in mean CI value for the CC algorithm and mean HI value for MCDm and MCDw were statistically significant. There is a statistically significant difference in the number of MUs for MCDm and MCDw compared to SS.
CONCLUSION: All investigated algorithms succeed in managing the restrictive conditions of the clinical goals. This study shows the drawbacks of the CC algorithm compared to other algorithms used.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study of 15 NSCLC patient dose distributions originally calculated using standard superposition (SS) and recalculated using collapsed cone (CC ) and Monte Carlo (MC) based algorithm expressed as dose to medium in medium (MCDm) and dose to water in medium (MCDw,) was performed so that prescribed dose covers at least 99% of the gross target volume (GTV). Statistical analysis was performed for differences of conformity index (CI), heterogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI), dose delivered to 2% of the volume (D2%), mean dose (Dmean) and percentage of volumes covered by prescribed dose (V70Gy). For organs at risk (OARs), Dmean and percentage of volume receiving 20 Gy and 5Gy (V20Gy, V5Gy) were analysed.
RESULTS: Statistically significant difference for GTVs was observed between MCDw and SS algorithm in mean dose only. For planning target volumes (PTVs), statistically significant differences were observed in prescribed dose coverage for CC, MCDm and MCDw. The differences in mean CI value for the CC algorithm and mean HI value for MCDm and MCDw were statistically significant. There is a statistically significant difference in the number of MUs for MCDm and MCDw compared to SS.
CONCLUSION: All investigated algorithms succeed in managing the restrictive conditions of the clinical goals. This study shows the drawbacks of the CC algorithm compared to other algorithms used.