Statistic and dosimetric criteria to assess the shift of the prescribed dose for lung radiotherapy plans when integrating point kernel models in medical physics: are we ready?

Dosimetrical and radiobiological approach to manage the dosimetric shift in the transition of dose calculation algorithm in radiation oncology: how to improve high quality treatment and avoid unexpected outcomes?

BACKGROUND

For a given prescribed dose of radiotherapy, with the successive generations of dose calculation algorithms, more monitor units (MUs) are generally needed. This is due to the implementation of successive improvements in dose calculation: better heterogeneity correction and more accurate estimation of secondary electron transport contribution. More recently, there is the possibility to report the dose-to-medium, physically more accurate compared to the dose-to-water as the reference one. This last point is a recent concern and the main focus of this study.

METHODS

In this paper, we propose steps for a general analysis procedure to estimate the dosimetric alterations, and the potential clinical changes, between a reference algorithm and a new one. This includes dosimetric parameters, gamma index, radiobiology indices based on equivalent uniform dose concept and statistics with bootstrap simulation. Finally, we provide a general recommendation on the clinical use of new algorithms regarding the dose prescription or dose limits to the organs at risks.

RESULTS

The dosimetrical and radiobiological data showed a significant effect, which might exceed 5-10%, of the calculation method on the dose the distribution and clinical outcomes for lung cancer patients. Wilcoxon signed rank paired comparisons indicated that the delivered dose in MUs was significantly increased (> 2%) using more advanced dose calculation methods as compared to the reference one.

CONCLUSION

This paper illustrates and explains the use of dosimetrical, radiobiologcal and statistical tests for dosimetric comparisons in radiotherapy. The change of dose calculation algorithm may induce a dosimetric shift, which has to be evaluated by the physicists and the oncologists. This includes the impact on tumor control and on the risk of toxicity based on normal tissue dose constraints. In fact, the alteration in dose distribution makes it hard to keep exactly the same tumor control probability along with the same normal tissue complication probability.

Agreement between gamma passing rates using computed tomography in radiotherapy and secondary cancer risk prediction from more advanced dose calculated models

BACKGROUND

During the past decades, in radiotherapy, the dose distributions were calculated using density correction methods with pencil beam as type 'a' algorithm. The objectives of this study are to assess and evaluate the impact of dose distribution shift on the predicted secondary cancer risk (SCR), using modern advanced dose calculation algorithms, point kernel, as type 'b', which consider change in lateral electrons transport.

METHODS

Clinical examples of pediatric cranio-spinal irradiation patients were evaluated. For each case, two radiotherapy treatment plans with were generated using the same prescribed dose to the target resulting in different number of monitor units (MUs) per field. The dose distributions were calculated, respectively, using both algorithms types. A gamma index (γ) analysis was used to compare dose distribution in the lung. The organ equivalent dose (OED) has been calculated with three different models, the linear, the linear-exponential and the plateau dose response curves. The excess absolute risk ratio (EAR) was also evaluated as (EAR = OED _{type 'b'} / OED _{type 'a'}).

RESULTS

The γ analysis results indicated an acceptable dose distribution agreement of 95% with 3%/3 mm. Although, the γ-maps displayed dose displacement >1 mm around the healthy lungs. Compared to type 'a', the OED values from type 'b' dose distributions' were about 8% to 16% higher, leading to an EAR ratio >1, ranged from 1.08 to 1.13 depending on SCR models.

CONCLUSIONS

The shift of dose calculation in radiotherapy, according to the algorithm, can significantly influence the SCR prediction and the plan optimization, since OEDs are calculated from DVH for a specific treatment. The agreement between dose distribution and SCR prediction depends on dose response models and epidemiological data. In addition, the γ passing rates of 3%/3 mm does not translate the difference, up to 15%, in the predictions of SCR resulting from alternative algorithms. Considering that modern algorithms are more accurate, showing more precisely the dose distributions, but that the prediction of absolute SCR is still very imprecise, only the EAR ratio could be used to rank radiotherapy plans.

Impact of dose calculation models on radiotherapy outcomes and quality adjusted life years for lung cancer treatment: do we need to measure radiotherapy outcomes to tune the radiobiological parameters of a normal tissue complication probability model?

BACKGROUND

The equivalent uniform dose (EUD) radiobiological model can be applied for lung cancer treatment plans to estimate the tumor control probability (TCP) and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) using different dose calculation models. Then, based on the different calculated doses, the quality adjusted life years (QALY) score can be assessed versus the uncomplicated tumor control probability (UTCP) concept in order to predict the overall outcome of the different treatment plans.

METHODS

Nine lung cancer cases were included in this study. For the each patient, two treatments plans were generated. The doses were calculated respectively from pencil beam model, as pencil beam convolution (PBC) turning on 1D density correction with Modified Batho's (MB) method, and point kernel model as anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) using exactly the same prescribed dose, normalized to 100% at isocentre point inside the target and beam arrangements. The radiotherapy outcomes and QALY were compared. The bootstrap method was used to improve the 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) estimation. Wilcoxon paired test was used to calculate P value.

RESULTS

Compared to AAA considered as more realistic, the PBC_MB overestimated the TCP while underestimating NTCP, P<0.05. Thus the UTCP and the QALY score were also overestimated.

CONCLUSIONS

To correlate measured QALY's obtained from the follow-up of the patients with calculated QALY from DVH metrics, the more accurate dose calculation models should be first integrated in clinical use. Second, clinically measured outcomes are necessary to tune the parameters of the NTCP model used to link the treatment outcome with the QALY. Only after these two steps, the comparison and the ranking of different radiotherapy plans would be possible, avoiding over/under estimation of QALY and any other clinic-biological estimates.