1
|
Kargar N, Zeinali A, Molazadeh M. Impact of Dose Calculation Algorithms and Radiobiological Parameters on Prediction of Cardiopulmonary Complications in Left Breast Radiation Therapy. J Biomed Phys Eng 2024; 14:129-140. [PMID: 38628897 PMCID: PMC11016826 DOI: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2305-1616] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/05/2023] [Accepted: 12/13/2023] [Indexed: 04/19/2024]
Abstract
Background Breast cancer requires evaluating treatment plans using dosimetric and biological parameters. Considering radiation dose distribution and tissue response, healthcare professionals can optimize treatment plans for better outcomes. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the effects of the different Dose Calculation Algorithms (DCAs) and Biologically Model-Related Parameters (BMRPs) on the prediction of cardiopulmonary complications due to left breast radiotherapy. Material and Methods In this practical study, the treatment plans of 21 female patients were simulated in the Monaco Treatment Planning System (TPS) with a prescribed dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions. Dose distribution was extracted using the three DCAs [Pencil Beam (PB), Collapsed Cone (CC), and Monte Carlo (MC)]. Cardiopulmonary complications were predicted by Normal Tissue Complication Probability (NTCP) calculations using different dosimetric and biological parameters. The Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) and Relative-Seriality (RS) models were used to calculate NTCP. The endpoint for NTCP calculation was pneumonitis, pericarditis, and late cardiac mortality. The ANOVA test was used for statistical analysis. Results In calculating Tumor Control Probability (TCP), a statistically significant difference was observed between the results of DCAs in the Poisson model. The PB algorithm estimated NTCP as less than others for all Pneumonia BMRPs. Conclusion The impact of DCAs and BMRPs differs in the estimation of TCP and NTCP. DCAs have a stronger influence on TCP calculation, providing more effective results. On the other hand, BMRPs are more effective in estimating NTCP. Consequently, parameters for radiobiological indices should be cautiously used s to ensure the appropriate consideration of both DCAs and BMRPs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Niloofar Kargar
- Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medicine, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran
| | - Ahad Zeinali
- Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medicine, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran
| | - Mikaeil Molazadeh
- Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Jaikuna T, Osorio EV, Azria D, Chang-Claude J, De Santis MC, Gutiérrez-Enríquez S, van Herk M, Hoskin P, Lambrecht M, Lingard Z, Seibold P, Seoane A, Sperk E, Symonds RP, Talbot CJ, Rancati T, Rattay T, Reyes V, Rosenstein BS, de Ruysscher D, Vega A, Veldeman L, Webb A, West CML, Aznar MC. Contouring variation affects estimates of normal tissue complication probability for breast fibrosis after radiotherapy. Breast 2023; 72:103578. [PMID: 37713940 PMCID: PMC10511799 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2023.103578] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2023] [Revised: 08/25/2023] [Accepted: 09/08/2023] [Indexed: 09/17/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models can be useful to estimate the risk of fibrosis after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and radiotherapy (RT) to the breast. However, they are subject to uncertainties. We present the impact of contouring variation on the prediction of fibrosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS 280 breast cancer patients treated BCS-RT were included. Nine Clinical Target Volume (CTV) contours were created for each patient: i) CTV_crop (reference), cropped 5 mm from the skin and ii) CTV_skin, uncropped and including the skin, iii) segmenting the 95% isodose (Iso95%) and iv) 3 different auto-contouring atlases generating uncropped and cropped contours (Atlas_skin/Atlas_crop). To illustrate the impact of contour variation on NTCP estimates, we applied two equations predicting fibrosis grade ≥ 2 at 5 years, based on Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) and Relative Seriality (RS) models, respectively, to each contour. Differences were evaluated using repeated-measures ANOVA. For completeness, the association between observed fibrosis events and NTCP estimates was also evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS There were minimal differences between contours when the same contouring approach was followed (cropped and uncropped). CTV_skin and Atlas_skin contours had lower NTCP estimates (-3.92%, IQR 4.00, p < 0.05) compared to CTV_crop. No significant difference was observed for Atlas_crop and Iso95% contours compared to CTV_crop. For the whole cohort, NTCP estimates varied between 5.3% and 49.5% (LKB) or 2.2% and 49.6% (RS) depending on the choice of contours. NTCP estimates for individual patients varied by up to a factor of 4. Estimates from "skin" contours showed higher agreement with observed events. CONCLUSION Contour variations can lead to significantly different NTCP estimates for breast fibrosis, highlighting the importance of standardising breast contours before developing and/or applying NTCP models.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tanwiwat Jaikuna
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Christie NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom; Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Eliana Vasquez Osorio
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Christie NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - David Azria
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Montpellier Cancer Institute, Université Montpellier, Inserm, U1194, France
| | - Jenny Chang-Claude
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; University Cancer Center Hamburg (UCCH), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany
| | | | - Sara Gutiérrez-Enríquez
- Hereditary Cancer Genetics Group, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Vall d'Hebron Hospital Campus, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Marcel van Herk
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Christie NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Peter Hoskin
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Christie NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | | | - Zoe Lingard
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Christie NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Petra Seibold
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Alejandro Seoane
- Medical Physics Department, Vall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Elena Sperk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mannheim Cancer Center, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany
| | - R Paul Symonds
- Leicester Cancer Research Centre, University of Leicester, United Kingdom
| | | | - Tiziana Rancati
- Data Science Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Tim Rattay
- Leicester Cancer Research Centre, University of Leicester, United Kingdom
| | - Victoria Reyes
- Radiation Oncology Department, Vall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Barry S Rosenstein
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Department of Genetics and Genomic Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, USA
| | - Dirk de Ruysscher
- Maastricht University Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro Clinic), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Ana Vega
- Fundación Pública Galega de Medicina Xenómica, Grupo de Medicina Xenómica (USC), Santiago de Compostela, Spain; Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; Biomedical Network on Rare Diseases (CIBERER), Spain
| | - Liv Veldeman
- Ghent University Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Adam Webb
- Department of Genetics and Genome Biology, University of Leicester, United Kingdom
| | - Catharine M L West
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Christie NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Marianne C Aznar
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Christie NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Gaur G, Dangwal VK, Banipal RPS, Singh R, Kaur G, Grover R, Sachdeva S, Kang MS, Singh S, Garg P, Singh B. Dosimetric Comparison of Different Dose Calculation Algorithms in Postmastectomy Breast Cancer Patients Using Conformal Planning Techniques. J Med Phys 2023; 48:136-145. [PMID: 37576097 PMCID: PMC10419741 DOI: 10.4103/jmp.jmp_28_23] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2023] [Revised: 05/18/2023] [Accepted: 05/24/2023] [Indexed: 08/15/2023] Open
Abstract
Background The aim of the current study was to compare three different dose-calculating algorithms, i.e., superposition (SP), fast SP (FSP), and convolution (CV), for breast cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and field-in-Field forward plan IMRT (FiF-FP-IMRT). Materials and Methods The current retrospective study involved 100 postmastectomy breast cancer patients who were given radiotherapy using IMRT and FiF-FP-IMRT planning techniques. All the initially SP-calculated plans were recalculated with the same monitor units for FSP and CV algorithm without change in any of the other planning parameters. The isodose distribution and various plan evaluating parameters, for example, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index, and uniformity index target volume and normal structure doses were compared and analyzed for all the different algorithm calculated plans. Results In the IMRT plans, all the target and normal structure dose-volume parameters showed a significant difference between all the three different algorithms with P < 0.05. In the FiF-FP-IMRT plans, CV algorithm showed a significant difference in most of the target and normal structure dose-volume parameters. Among quality indexes, only CI showed a significant difference between all the algorithms in both the planning techniques. R50 showed a significant difference with the CV algorithm in both the planning techniques. Conclusion The change in the dose calculation algorithm resulted in dosimetric changes which must be evaluated by the medical physicists and oncologists while evaluating treatment plans. In the current study with breast patients, the results obtained for target and normal structure doses using the CV algorithm are overestimated as compared to SP and FSP algorithms, producing variable results in air and bony normal structures. However, the ipsilateral lung V5 parameter and the ipsilateral humeral head mean dose were found to be underestimated by the CV algorithm as compared to the SP and FSP algorithm in both the planning techniques.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Garima Gaur
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, Punjab, India
| | - Vinod Kumar Dangwal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Government Medical College, Patiala, Punjab, India
| | | | | | - Gurpreet Kaur
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, Punjab, India
| | - Romikant Grover
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, Punjab, India
| | | | - Manraj Singh Kang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, Punjab, India
| | - Simrandeep Singh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, Punjab, India
| | - Pardeep Garg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, Punjab, India
| | - Baltej Singh
- Department of Community Medicine, Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, Punjab, India
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Hardcastle N, Montaseri A, Lydon J, Kron T, Osbourne G, Casswell G, Taylor D, Hall L, McDowell L. Dose to medium in head and neck radiotherapy: Clinical implications for target volume metrics. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2019; 11:92-97. [PMID: 33458286 PMCID: PMC7807679 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2019.08.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/02/2019] [Revised: 08/21/2019] [Accepted: 08/28/2019] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE In radiotherapy dose calculation, advanced type-B dose calculation algorithms can calculate dose to medium (Dm ), as opposed to Type-B algorithms which compute dose to varying densities of water (Dw ). We investigate the impact of Dm on calculated dose and target coverage metrics in head and neck cancer patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS We reviewed 27 successfully treated (disease free at two-years post-(chemo)radiotherapy) human papillomavirus-associated (HPV) oropharyngeal cancer (ONC) patients treated with IMRT. Doses were calculated with Type-B and Linear Boltzman Transport Equation (LBTE) algorithms in a commercial treatment planning system, with the treated multi-leaf collimator patterns and monitor units. Coverage for primary Gross Tumour Volume (GTVp), high dose Planning Target Volume (PTV) (PTV_High), mandible within PTV_High (Mand ∩ PTV) and PTV_High excluding bone (PTV-bone) were compared between the algorithms. RESULTS Dose to 95% of PTV_High with LBTE was on average 1.1 Gy/1.7% lower than with Type-B (95%CI 1.5-1.9%, p < 0.0001). This magnitude was inversely linearly correlated with the relative volume of the PTV_High containing bone (pearson r = -0.81). Dose to 98% of the GTVp was 0.9 Gy/1.3% lower with LBTE compared with Type-B (95%CI 1.1-1.5%, p < 0.05). Dose to 98% of Mand ∩ PTV was on average 3.4 Gy/5.0% lower with LBTE than with Type-B (95%CI 4.6-5.4%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION In OPC treated with IMRT, Dm results in significant reductions in dose to bone in high dose PTVs. Reported GTVp dose was reduced, but by a lower magnitude. Reduced coverage metrics should be expected for OPC patients treated with IMRT, with dose reductions limited to regions of bone.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicholas Hardcastle
- Physical Sciences, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan St, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia
- Centre for Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
| | - Atousa Montaseri
- Physical Sciences, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan St, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia
| | - Jenny Lydon
- Physical Sciences, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan St, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia
| | - Tomas Kron
- Physical Sciences, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan St, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Glen Osbourne
- Department of Radiation Therapy, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan St, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia
| | - Georgina Casswell
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan St, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia
| | - David Taylor
- Physical Sciences, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan St, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia
| | - Lisa Hall
- Department of Radiation Therapy, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan St, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia
| | - Lachlan McDowell
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan St, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia
| |
Collapse
|