Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Clinical and Translational Oncology 5/2016

01-05-2016 | Research Article

The effect of slice thickness on target and organs at risk volumes, dosimetric coverage and radiobiological impact in IMRT planning

Authors: S. P. Srivastava, C.-W. Cheng, I. J. Das

Published in: Clinical and Translational Oncology | Issue 5/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Dose–volume histogram (DVH) has become an important tool for evaluation of radiation outcome as reflected from many clinical protocols. While dosimetric accuracy in treatment planning system (TPS) is well quantified, the variability in volume estimation is uncertain due to reconstruction algorithm that is investigated in this study. In addition, the impact of dose distribution and tumor control probability (TCP) were also investigated with CT slice thickness for IMRT planning.

Materials and methods

A water phantom containing various objects with accurately known volume ranging from 1 to 100 cm3 was scanned with 1, 2, 3, 5, and 10 mm slice thickness. The CT data sets were sent to Eclipse TPS for contour delineation and volume estimation. The data were compared with known volume for the estimation of error in the volume of each structure. IMRT Plans were generated on phantom containing four objects with different slice thickness (1–5 mm) to calculate TCP. ICRU-83-recommended dose points such as D 2%, D 50%, D 98%, as well as homogeneity and conformity index were also calculated.

Results

The variability of volumes with CT slice thickness was significant especially for small volume structures. A maximum error of 92 % was noticed for 1 cm3 volume of object with 10 mm slice thickness, whereas it was ~19 % for 1 mm slice thickness. For 2 and 3 cm3 objects, the maximum error of 99 % was noticed with 10 mm slice thickness and ~60 % with 5 mm. The differences are smaller for larger volumes with a cutoff at about 20 cm3. The calculated volume of the objects is a function of reconstruction algorithm and slice thickness. The PTV mean dose and TCP decreased with increasing slice thickness. Maximum variation of ~5 % was noticed in mean dose and ~2 % in TCP with change in slice thickness from 1 to 5 mm. The relative decrease in target volume receiving 95 % of the prescribed dose is ~5 % with change in slice thickness from 1 to 5 mm. The homogeneity index increases up to 163 % and conformity index decreases by 4 % between 1 and 5 mm slice thickness, producing highly inhomogeneous and least conformal treatment plan.

Conclusions

Estimation of a volume is dependent on CT slice thickness and the contouring algorithm in a TPS. During commissioning of TPS and for all clinical protocols, evaluation of volume should be included to provide the limit of accuracy in DVH from TPS, especially for small objects. A smaller slice thickness provides superior dosimetry with improved TCP. Thus, the smallest possible slice thickness should be used for IMRT planning, especially when smaller structures are present.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Van Dyk J, Barnett RB, Cygler JE, Shragge PC. Commissioning and quality assurance of treatment planning computers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993;26:261–73.CrossRefPubMed Van Dyk J, Barnett RB, Cygler JE, Shragge PC. Commissioning and quality assurance of treatment planning computers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993;26:261–73.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference IAEA TRS 430. Commissioning and quality assurance of computerized planning systems for radiation treatment of cancer Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy agency; 2004. IAEA TRS 430. Commissioning and quality assurance of computerized planning systems for radiation treatment of cancer Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy agency; 2004.
3.
go back to reference Eisbruch A, Foote RL, O’Sullivan B, Beitler JJ, Vikram B. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head and neck cancer: emphasis on the selection and delineation of the targets. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2002;12:238–49.CrossRefPubMed Eisbruch A, Foote RL, O’Sullivan B, Beitler JJ, Vikram B. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head and neck cancer: emphasis on the selection and delineation of the targets. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2002;12:238–49.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference ICRU Report 50. Prescribing, recording, and reporting photon beam therapy. Report. Bethesda, MD: International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. 1993. ICRU Report 50. ICRU Report 50. Prescribing, recording, and reporting photon beam therapy. Report. Bethesda, MD: International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. 1993. ICRU Report 50.
5.
go back to reference ICRU 62. Prescribing, recording, and reporting photon beam therapy (Supplement to ICRU Report 50). report. Bethesda, MD: International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements; 1999. ICRU 62. Prescribing, recording, and reporting photon beam therapy (Supplement to ICRU Report 50). report. Bethesda, MD: International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements; 1999.
6.
go back to reference Muren LP, Karlsdottir A, Kvinnsland Y, Wentzel-Larsen T, Dahl O. Testing the new ICRU 62 ‘planning organ at risk volume’ concept for the rectum. Radiother Oncol. 2005;75:293–302.CrossRefPubMed Muren LP, Karlsdottir A, Kvinnsland Y, Wentzel-Larsen T, Dahl O. Testing the new ICRU 62 ‘planning organ at risk volume’ concept for the rectum. Radiother Oncol. 2005;75:293–302.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Ahnesjö A, Aspradakis MM. Dose calculations for external photon beams in radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol. 1999;44:R99–155.CrossRefPubMed Ahnesjö A, Aspradakis MM. Dose calculations for external photon beams in radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol. 1999;44:R99–155.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Ahnesjö A, Weber L, Murman A, Saxner M, Thorslund I, Traneus E. Beam modeling and verification of a photon beam multisource model. Med Phys. 2005;32:1722–37.CrossRefPubMed Ahnesjö A, Weber L, Murman A, Saxner M, Thorslund I, Traneus E. Beam modeling and verification of a photon beam multisource model. Med Phys. 2005;32:1722–37.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Fogliata A, Nicolini G, Vanetti E, Clivio A, Cozzi L. 2006; Dosimetric validation of the anisotropic analytical algorithm for photon dose calculation: fundamental characterization in water. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51:1421–38.CrossRefPubMed Fogliata A, Nicolini G, Vanetti E, Clivio A, Cozzi L. 2006; Dosimetric validation of the anisotropic analytical algorithm for photon dose calculation: fundamental characterization in water. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51:1421–38.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Knöös T, Ceberg C, Weber L, Nilsson P. The dosimetric verification of a pencil beam based treatment planning system. Phys Med Biol. 1994;39:1609–28.CrossRefPubMed Knöös T, Ceberg C, Weber L, Nilsson P. The dosimetric verification of a pencil beam based treatment planning system. Phys Med Biol. 1994;39:1609–28.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Nisbet A, Beanage I, Vollmar H-S, Irvine C, Morgan A, Thwaites DI. Dosimetric verification of a commercial collapsed cone algorith in simulated clinical situations. Radiother Oncol. 2004;73:79–88.CrossRefPubMed Nisbet A, Beanage I, Vollmar H-S, Irvine C, Morgan A, Thwaites DI. Dosimetric verification of a commercial collapsed cone algorith in simulated clinical situations. Radiother Oncol. 2004;73:79–88.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Van Esch A, Tillikainen L, Pyykkonen J, Tenhunen M, Helminen H, Siljamaki S, et al. Testing of the analytical anisotropic algorithm for photon dose calculation. Med Phys. 2006;33:4130–48.CrossRefPubMed Van Esch A, Tillikainen L, Pyykkonen J, Tenhunen M, Helminen H, Siljamaki S, et al. Testing of the analytical anisotropic algorithm for photon dose calculation. Med Phys. 2006;33:4130–48.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Ibbott GS, Haworth A, Followill DS. Quality assurance for clinical trials. Front Oncol. 2013;2013:3. Ibbott GS, Haworth A, Followill DS. Quality assurance for clinical trials. Front Oncol. 2013;2013:3.
14.
go back to reference Ibbott GS, Followill DS, Molineu HA, Lowenstein JR, Alvarez PE, Roll JE. Challenges in credentialing institutions and participants in advanced technology multi-institutional clinical trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71:S71–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ibbott GS, Followill DS, Molineu HA, Lowenstein JR, Alvarez PE, Roll JE. Challenges in credentialing institutions and participants in advanced technology multi-institutional clinical trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71:S71–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Benedict SH, Yenice KM, Followill D, Galvin JM, Hinson W, Kavanagh B, et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy: the report of AAPM task group 101. Med Phys. 2010;37:4078–101.CrossRefPubMed Benedict SH, Yenice KM, Followill D, Galvin JM, Hinson W, Kavanagh B, et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy: the report of AAPM task group 101. Med Phys. 2010;37:4078–101.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference TG-53. American association of physicists in medicine radiation therapy committee task group 53: quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning. Med Phys. 1998;1998(25):1773–829. TG-53. American association of physicists in medicine radiation therapy committee task group 53: quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning. Med Phys. 1998;1998(25):1773–829.
17.
go back to reference Ebert MA, Haworth A, Kearvell R, Hooton B, Hug B, Spry NA, et al. Comparison of DVH data from multiple radiotherapy treatment planning systems. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55:N337–46.CrossRefPubMed Ebert MA, Haworth A, Kearvell R, Hooton B, Hug B, Spry NA, et al. Comparison of DVH data from multiple radiotherapy treatment planning systems. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55:N337–46.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Henriquez FC, Vargas Castrillon S. Confidence intervals in dose volume histogram computation. Med Phys. 2010;2010(37):1545–53.CrossRef Henriquez FC, Vargas Castrillon S. Confidence intervals in dose volume histogram computation. Med Phys. 2010;2010(37):1545–53.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Lee CT, Dong L, Ahamad AW, Choi H, Cheung R, Lee AK, et al. Comparison of treatment volumes and techniques in prostate cancer radiation therapy. Am J Clin Oncol. 2005;28:618–25.CrossRefPubMed Lee CT, Dong L, Ahamad AW, Choi H, Cheung R, Lee AK, et al. Comparison of treatment volumes and techniques in prostate cancer radiation therapy. Am J Clin Oncol. 2005;28:618–25.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Fiorentino A, Caivano R, Pedicini P, Fusco V. Clinical target volume definition for glioblastoma radiotherapy planning: magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography. Clin Transl Oncol. 2013;15:754–8.CrossRefPubMed Fiorentino A, Caivano R, Pedicini P, Fusco V. Clinical target volume definition for glioblastoma radiotherapy planning: magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography. Clin Transl Oncol. 2013;15:754–8.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Cheng CW, Das IJ. Treatment plan evaluation using dose-volume histogram (DVH) and spatial dose-volume histogram (zDVH). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;43:1143–50.CrossRefPubMed Cheng CW, Das IJ. Treatment plan evaluation using dose-volume histogram (DVH) and spatial dose-volume histogram (zDVH). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;43:1143–50.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Prabhakar R, Ganesh T, Rath GK, Julka PK, Sridhar PS, Joshi RC, et al. Impact of different CT slice thickness on clinical target volume for 3D conformal radiation therapy. Med Dosim. 2009;34:36–41.CrossRefPubMed Prabhakar R, Ganesh T, Rath GK, Julka PK, Sridhar PS, Joshi RC, et al. Impact of different CT slice thickness on clinical target volume for 3D conformal radiation therapy. Med Dosim. 2009;34:36–41.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Prionas ND, Ray S, Boone JM. Volume assessment accuracy in computed tomography: a phantom study. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2010;11(2):3037.PubMedPubMedCentral Prionas ND, Ray S, Boone JM. Volume assessment accuracy in computed tomography: a phantom study. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2010;11(2):3037.PubMedPubMedCentral
24.
go back to reference ICRU Report 83. Prescribing, recording, and reporting intensity-modulated photon- beam therapy (IMRT) (ICRU Report 83) report. Bethesda, MD: International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements; 2010. ICRU Report 83. Prescribing, recording, and reporting intensity-modulated photon- beam therapy (IMRT) (ICRU Report 83) report. Bethesda, MD: International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements; 2010.
25.
go back to reference Schultheiss TE, Orton CG, Peck RA. Models in radiotherapy: volume effects. Med Phys. 1983;10:410–5.CrossRefPubMed Schultheiss TE, Orton CG, Peck RA. Models in radiotherapy: volume effects. Med Phys. 1983;10:410–5.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Das IJ, Bieda M, Cheng C, Chopra K, Hasson B, Olch A, et al. Dosimetric comparison of inverse treatment planning system for IMRT: a collaborative study. Med Phys. 2004;31:1750. Das IJ, Bieda M, Cheng C, Chopra K, Hasson B, Olch A, et al. Dosimetric comparison of inverse treatment planning system for IMRT: a collaborative study. Med Phys. 2004;31:1750.
27.
go back to reference Somigliana A, Zonca G, Loi G, Sichirollo AE. How thick should CT/MR slices to plan conformal radiotherapy? A study on the accuracy of three-dimensional volume reconstruction. Tumori. 1996;82:470–2.PubMed Somigliana A, Zonca G, Loi G, Sichirollo AE. How thick should CT/MR slices to plan conformal radiotherapy? A study on the accuracy of three-dimensional volume reconstruction. Tumori. 1996;82:470–2.PubMed
28.
go back to reference Caivano R, Fiorentino A, Pedicini P, Califano G, Fusco V. The impact of computed tomography slice thickness on the assessment of stereotactic, 3D conformal and intensity-modulated radiotherapy of brain tumors. Clin Transl Oncol. 2013;2013:1–6. Caivano R, Fiorentino A, Pedicini P, Califano G, Fusco V. The impact of computed tomography slice thickness on the assessment of stereotactic, 3D conformal and intensity-modulated radiotherapy of brain tumors. Clin Transl Oncol. 2013;2013:1–6.
29.
go back to reference Chao KSC, Ozyigit G, Blanco AI, Thorstad WL, Deasy JO, Haughey BH, et al. 2004; Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for oropharyngeal carcinoma: impact of tumor volume. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;59:43–50.CrossRefPubMed Chao KSC, Ozyigit G, Blanco AI, Thorstad WL, Deasy JO, Haughey BH, et al. 2004; Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for oropharyngeal carcinoma: impact of tumor volume. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;59:43–50.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Lok BH, Setton J, Caria N, Romanyshyn J, Wolden SL, Zelefsky MJ, et al. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy in oropharyngeal carcinoma: effect of tumor volume on clinical outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82:1851–7.CrossRefPubMed Lok BH, Setton J, Caria N, Romanyshyn J, Wolden SL, Zelefsky MJ, et al. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy in oropharyngeal carcinoma: effect of tumor volume on clinical outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82:1851–7.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The effect of slice thickness on target and organs at risk volumes, dosimetric coverage and radiobiological impact in IMRT planning
Authors
S. P. Srivastava
C.-W. Cheng
I. J. Das
Publication date
01-05-2016
Publisher
Springer Milan
Published in
Clinical and Translational Oncology / Issue 5/2016
Print ISSN: 1699-048X
Electronic ISSN: 1699-3055
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-015-1390-z

Other articles of this Issue 5/2016

Clinical and Translational Oncology 5/2016 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine