Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Radiation Oncology
Published in: Radiation Oncology 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Methodology

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?

Authors: Abdulhamid Chaikh, Jarkko Ojala, Catherine Khamphan, Robin Garcia, Jean Yves Giraud, Juliette Thariat, Jacques Balosso

Published in: Radiation Oncology | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Literature
1.
Liu H, Keall P. Dm rather than Dw should be used in Monte Carlo treatment planning. Med Phys. 2002;29:922–4.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Ma C, Li J. Dose specification for radiation therapy: dose to water or dose to medium? Phys Med Biol. 2011;56:3073–89.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Andreo P. Dose to ‘water-like’ media or dose to tissue in MV photons radiotherapy treatment planning: still a matter of debate. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60:309–37.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Chetty IJ, et al. Issues associated with clinical implementation of Monte Carlo-based photon and electron external beam treatment planning. Med Phys. 2007;34(12):4818–53.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Smilowitz JB, et al. AAPM medical physics practice guideline 5.A.: commissioning and QA of treatment planning dose calculations — megavoltage photon and Electron beams. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016;17(1)
6.
Chaikh A, Balosso J. Should the dose prescription be readjusted when using tissues density corrections algorithms for radiation oncology? J Case Rep Onc Ther. 2014;1(1):01018.
7.
Chaikh A, Khamphan C, Kumar T, Garcia R, Balosso J. What should we know about photon dose calculation algorithms used for radiotherapy? Their impact on dose distribution and medical decisions based on TCP/NTCP. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol. 2016;4(4):4418.
8.
Ojala JJ, Kapanen MK, Hyödynmaa SJ, et al. Performance of dose calculation algorithms from three generations in lung SBRT: comparison with full Monte Carlo-based dose distributions. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014;15(2):4–18.CrossRefPubMedCentral
9.
10.
Siebers JV, Keall PJ, Nahum AE, Mohan R. Converting absorbed dose to medium to absorbed dose to water for Monte Carlo based photon beam dose calculations. Phys Med Biol. 2000;45:983–95.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Ojala J. The accuracy of the Acuros XB algorithm in external beam radiotherapy–a comprehensive review. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol. 2014;2(4):020417.CrossRef
12.
Rana S. Clinical dosimetric impact of Acuros XB and analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) on real lung cancer treatment plans: review. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol. 2014;2:02019.CrossRef
13.
14.
Ojala J, Kapanen M. Quantification of dose differences between two versions of Acuros XB algorithm compared to Monte Carlo simulations — the effect on clinical patient treatment planning. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015;16(6):213–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Chaikh A, Giraud JY, Balosso J. A method to quantify and assess the dosimetric and clinical impact resulting from the heterogeneity correction in radiotherapy for lung cancer. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol. 2014;2(1):020110. 14CrossRef
16.
ICRU Report 50. Prescribing, Recording and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy. 1993.
17.
ICRU Report 62. Prescribing, Recording and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy (Supplement to ICRU Report 50). 1999.
18.
ICRU Report 83. Prescribing, Recording, and Reporting Photon-Beam Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) 2010; 10(1).
19.
Chaikh A, Balosso J. 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? Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2016;5(6):681–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Spezi E, Lewis DG. γ histograms for radiotherapy plan evaluation. Radiother Oncol. 2006;79:224–30.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Chaikh A, Balosso J, Giraud JY. A 3D quantitative evaluation for assessing the changes of treatment planning system and irradiation techniques in radiotherapy. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol. 2014;2(3):02033.CrossRef
22.
Chaikh A, Desgranges C, Balosso J. The use of gamma indices with medical imaging as quality assurance tool to validate the dose calculation algorithm in the modern practice of medical physics. Nucl Med Biomed Imaging. 2016;1(2):31–4.
23.
Baptiste B, David M. The delta envelope: a technique for dose distribution comparison. Med Phys. 2009;36(3):797–808.CrossRef
24.
Bakai A, Alber M, Nusslin F. A revision of the gamma-evaluation concept for the comparison of dose distributions. Phys Med Biol. 2003;48:3543–53.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Graves YJ, Jia X, Jiang BS. Effect of statistical fluctuation in Monte Carlo based photon beam dose calculation on gamma index evaluation. Phys Med Biol. 2013;58:1839–53.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Chaikh A, Balosso J. The use of radiobiological TCP and NTCP models to validate the dose calculation algorithm and readjust the prescribed dose. Radiother Oncol. 2016;118(1):S24.CrossRef
27.
Niemierko A. Reporting and analyzing dose distributions: a concept of equivalent uniform dose. Med Phys. 1997;24(1):103–10.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Gay HA, Niemierko A. A free program for calculating EUD-based NTCP and TCP in external beam radiotherapy. Physica Medica. 2007;23:115–25.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Emami B, Lyman J, Brown A, Coia L, Goiten M, Munzenride JE, Shank B, Solin LJ, Wesson M. Tolerance of normal tissue to therapeutic radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991;21:109–22.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Burman C, Kijtcher GJ, Emami B, Goitein M. Fitting of normal tissue tolerance data to an analytic function. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991;21(1):123–35.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Allen Li X, Alber M, Deasy JO, Jackson A, Ken Jee KW, Marks LB, Martel MK, Mayo C, Moiseenko V, Nahum AE, Niemierko A, Semenenko VA, Yorke ED. The use and QA of biologically related models for treatment planning: short report of the TG-166 of the therapy physics committee of the AAPM. Med Phys. 2012;39(3):1386–409. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1118/​1.​3685447.
32.
Chaikh A, Giraud JY, Perrin E, Bresciani JP, Balosso J. The choice of statistical methods for comparisons of dosimetric data in radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol. 2014;9:205.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Xiao Y, Papiez L, Paulus R. Dosimetric evaluation of heterogeneity corrections for RTOG 0236: stereotactic body radiation therapy of inoperable stage I/II non-small cell lung Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;73(4):1235–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Herman TLF, Hibbitts K, Herman T, Ahmad S. Evaluation of pencil beam convolution and anisotropic analytical algorithms in stereotactic lung irradiation. J Med Phys. 2011;36(4):234–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Okunieff P, Morgan D, Niemierko A, Suit HD. Radiation dose-response of human tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;32(4):1227–37.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Niemierko A. Biological optimization. In: Bortfeld T, Schmidt-Ullrich R, De Neve W, Wazer DE, editors. Image-guided IMRT. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2006. p. 199–216.CrossRef
37.
Marks LB, Yorke ED, Jackson A, et al. Use of normal tissue complication probability models in the clinic. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76(3):S10–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Noël G, Antoni D, Barillot I, Chauvet B. Delineation of organs at risk and dose constraints. Cancer Radiothér. 2016;20S:S36–60.CrossRef
39.
Hedin E, Bäck A. Influence of different dose calculation algorithms on the estimate of NTCP for lung complications. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013;14(5):127–39.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Chapet O, Kong FM, Leeb JS, Haymana JA, Hakena R. Normal tissue complication probability modeling for acute esophagitis in patients treated with conformal radiation therapy for non-small cell lung cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2005;77:176–81.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
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?
Authors
Abdulhamid Chaikh
Jarkko Ojala
Catherine Khamphan
Robin Garcia
Jean Yves Giraud
Juliette Thariat
Jacques Balosso
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Radiation Oncology / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1748-717X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-018-1005-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Radiation Oncology 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research

Side effects of CT-guided implantation of 125I seeds for recurrent malignant tumors of the head and neck assisted by 3D printing non co-planar template

Research

Technical and dosimetric implications of respiratory induced density variations in a heterogeneous lung phantom

Research

Response criteria in solid tumors (PERCIST/RECIST) and SUVmax in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy

Research

Dosimetric feasibility of 4DCT-ventilation imaging guided proton therapy for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

Research

Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) for liver metastasis – clinical outcomes from the international multi-institutional RSSearch® Patient Registry

Letter to the Editor

Response to “in regard to “Tran A, Zhang J, Woods K, Yu V, Nguyen D, Gustafson G, Rosen L, Sheng K. Treatment planning comparison of IMPT, VMAT and 4π radiotherapy for prostate cases””