Volume Variations of Regions of Interest among Different Radiological Treatment Planning Systems_West China Medical Journal

Authors：

 FanLin ^1,2 , LinQiang ¹ , LiGuangjun ¹ , XiaoMingyong ² ,  FuYuchuan ¹

1. Radiation Physics Center, West China Hospital-Radiophysical Technoogy Center of National Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, P. R. China;
2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, P. R. China;

Corresponding author：

FuYuchuan, Email: ychfu@hotmail.com

Keywords：

Volume variations; Regions of interest; Treatment planning systems; Quality assurance systems; Digital imaging and communications in Medicine RT protocol

DOI：

10.7507/1002-0179.201600194

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To investigate the consistency of regions of interest (ROI) volume among different radiological treatment planning systems (TPS) for the same group of patient data, and analyze the tendency and degree of differences caused by data transfer. Methods Between October 2010 and December 2013, the data of 10 nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients treated in West China Hospital were transferred from Monaco TPS into various other treatment planning systems. Based on different ROI volumes, they were divided into 8 groups. We counted the volume differences between these TPS and Monaco TPS, and carried out the statistical analysis. Results For small ROI volume, the calculated difference reached up to 65% in our study. As a general trend, differences became less and less with the increasing of volumes. But for single ROI, the volume difference was likely to vary randomly. The percentage of ROI volumes which were smaller than that of Monaco TPS was 70% for Raystation TPS, 38.75% for Pinnacle TPS, 88.75% for Eclipse TPS, 97.5% for Masterplan TPS, and 83.13% for iPlan TPS. Conclusions ROI volume differences exist generally among different treatment planning systems when ROIs are transferred among them by DICOM protocol. The volume variations may be affected by multiple factors. The volume consistency should be evaluated before any direct comparison of dose volu me histogram parameters which are done between different systems.

Citation： FanLin, LinQiang, LiGuangjun, XiaoMingyong, FuYuchuan. Volume Variations of Regions of Interest among Different Radiological Treatment Planning Systems. West China Medical Journal, 2016, 31(4): 714-717. doi: 10.7507/1002-0179.201600194 Copy

1.	Louis P, Gaspar LE, Brian K, et al. American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) and American College of Radiology (ACR) practice guidelines for image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT)[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2010, 76(2): 319-325.
2.	Nelms BE, Simon JA. A survey on planar IMRT QA analysis[J]. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 2007, 8(3): 2448.
3.	Caivano R, Califano G, Fiorentino A, et al. Clinically relevant quality assurance for intensity modulated radiotherapy plans: gamma maps and DVH-based evaluation[J]. Cancer Invest, 2014, 32(3): 85-91.
4.	Nakaguchi Y, Araki F, Ono T, et al. Validation of a quick three-dimensional dose verification system for pre-treatment IMRT QA[J]. Radiol Phys Technol, 2015, 8(1): 1-8.
5.	Reynolds M, Fallone BG, Rathee S. Dose response of selected ion chambers in applied homogeneous transverse and longitudinal magnetic fields[J]. Med Phys, 2013, 40(4): 042102.
6.	Zhen H, Nelms BE, Tome WA. Moving from gamma passing rates to patient DVH-based QA metrics in pretreatment dose QA[J]. Med Phys, 2011, 38(10): 5477-5489.
7.	Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S, et al. A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions[J]. Med Phys, 1998, 25(5): 656-661.
8.	Knöös T, Wieslander E, Cozzi L, et al. Comparison of dose calculation algorithms for treatment planning in external photon beam therapy for clinical situations[J]. Phys Med Biol, 2006, 51(22): 5785-5807.
9.	Takahashi W, Yamashita H, Saotome N, et al. Evaluation of heterogeneity dose distributions for stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT): comparison of commercially available Monte Carlo dose calculation with other algorithms[J]. Radiat Oncol, 2012, 7(7): 20-27.
10.	Hasenbalg F, Neuenschwander H, Mini R, et al. Collapsed cone convolution and analytical anisotropic algorithm dose calculations compared to VMC++ Monte Carlo simulations in clinical cases[J]. Phys Med Biol, 2007, 52(13): 3679-3691.
11.	Pooler AM, Mayles HM, Naismith OF, et al. Evaluation of margining algorithms in commercial treatment planning systems[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2008, 86(1): 43-47.
12.	Au JS, Law CK, Foo W, et al. In-depth evaluation of the AJCC/UICC 1997 staging system of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: prognostic homogeneity and proposed refinements[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2003, 56(2): 413-426.
13.	吴魁, 李光俊, 蒋晓芹, 等. 千伏级锥形束CT影像用于鼻咽癌调强放疗计划剂量计算的可行性[J]. 华西医学, 2010, 25(12): 2156-2159.
14.	冀传仙, 柏森, 李光俊, 等. 二级准直器在鼻咽癌容积调强放射治疗计划设计中的应用研究[J]. 华西医学, 2015, 30(7): 1235-1238.
15.	王佳舟, 陈俊超, 李龙根, 等. Pinnacle与Eclipse计划系统对感兴趣区体积计算的比较[J]. 中华放射肿瘤学杂志, 2011, 20(2): 156-159.
16.	孙文钊, 胡江, 黄思娟, 等. 四种治疗计划系统中靶区边界外扩算法应用的比较研究[J]. 中国医学物理学杂志, 2013, 30(5): 4369-4372.
17.	Gwynne S, Spezi E, Sebag-Montefiore D, et al. Improving radiotherapy quality assurance in clinical trials: assessment of target volume delineation of the pre-accrual benchmark case[J]. Br J Radiol, 2013, 86(1024): 273.
18.	Purdy JA, Poortmans PM. Quality assurance for multi-institutional clinical trials[M]//Levitt SH, Purdy JA, Perez CA, et al. Technical basis of radiation therapy. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2012: 531-548.

1. Louis P, Gaspar LE, Brian K, et al. American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) and American College of Radiology (ACR) practice guidelines for image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT)[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2010, 76(2): 319-325.
2. Nelms BE, Simon JA. A survey on planar IMRT QA analysis[J]. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 2007, 8(3): 2448.
3. Caivano R, Califano G, Fiorentino A, et al. Clinically relevant quality assurance for intensity modulated radiotherapy plans: gamma maps and DVH-based evaluation[J]. Cancer Invest, 2014, 32(3): 85-91.
4. Nakaguchi Y, Araki F, Ono T, et al. Validation of a quick three-dimensional dose verification system for pre-treatment IMRT QA[J]. Radiol Phys Technol, 2015, 8(1): 1-8.
5. Reynolds M, Fallone BG, Rathee S. Dose response of selected ion chambers in applied homogeneous transverse and longitudinal magnetic fields[J]. Med Phys, 2013, 40(4): 042102.
6. Zhen H, Nelms BE, Tome WA. Moving from gamma passing rates to patient DVH-based QA metrics in pretreatment dose QA[J]. Med Phys, 2011, 38(10): 5477-5489.
7. Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S, et al. A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions[J]. Med Phys, 1998, 25(5): 656-661.
8. Knöös T, Wieslander E, Cozzi L, et al. Comparison of dose calculation algorithms for treatment planning in external photon beam therapy for clinical situations[J]. Phys Med Biol, 2006, 51(22): 5785-5807.
9. Takahashi W, Yamashita H, Saotome N, et al. Evaluation of heterogeneity dose distributions for stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT): comparison of commercially available Monte Carlo dose calculation with other algorithms[J]. Radiat Oncol, 2012, 7(7): 20-27.
10. Hasenbalg F, Neuenschwander H, Mini R, et al. Collapsed cone convolution and analytical anisotropic algorithm dose calculations compared to VMC++ Monte Carlo simulations in clinical cases[J]. Phys Med Biol, 2007, 52(13): 3679-3691.
11. Pooler AM, Mayles HM, Naismith OF, et al. Evaluation of margining algorithms in commercial treatment planning systems[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2008, 86(1): 43-47.
12. Au JS, Law CK, Foo W, et al. In-depth evaluation of the AJCC/UICC 1997 staging system of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: prognostic homogeneity and proposed refinements[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2003, 56(2): 413-426.
13. 吴魁, 李光俊, 蒋晓芹, 等. 千伏级锥形束CT影像用于鼻咽癌调强放疗计划剂量计算的可行性[J]. 华西医学, 2010, 25(12): 2156-2159.
14. 冀传仙, 柏森, 李光俊, 等. 二级准直器在鼻咽癌容积调强放射治疗计划设计中的应用研究[J]. 华西医学, 2015, 30(7): 1235-1238.
15. 王佳舟, 陈俊超, 李龙根, 等. Pinnacle与Eclipse计划系统对感兴趣区体积计算的比较[J]. 中华放射肿瘤学杂志, 2011, 20(2): 156-159.
16. 孙文钊, 胡江, 黄思娟, 等. 四种治疗计划系统中靶区边界外扩算法应用的比较研究[J]. 中国医学物理学杂志, 2013, 30(5): 4369-4372.
17. Gwynne S, Spezi E, Sebag-Montefiore D, et al. Improving radiotherapy quality assurance in clinical trials: assessment of target volume delineation of the pre-accrual benchmark case[J]. Br J Radiol, 2013, 86(1024): 273.
18. Purdy JA, Poortmans PM. Quality assurance for multi-institutional clinical trials[M]//Levitt SH, Purdy JA, Perez CA, et al. Technical basis of radiation therapy. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2012: 531-548.

West China Medical Journal

Volume Variations of Regions of Interest among Different Radiological Treatment Planning Systems

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content