Patient performance-based plan parameter optimization for prostate cancer in tomotherapy

Yuan Jie Cao, Suk Lee, Kyung Hwan Chang, Jang Bo Shim, Kwang Hyeon Kim, Young Je Park, Chul Yong Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the influence of treatment-planning parameters on the quality of treatment plans in tomotherapy and to find the optimized planning parameter combinations when treating patients with prostate cancer under different performances. A total of 3 patients with prostate cancer with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or 3 were included in this study. For each patient, 27 treatment plans were created using a combination of planning parameters (field width of 1, 2.5, and 5 cm; pitch of 0.172, 0.287, and 0.43; and modulation factor of 1.8, 3, and 3.5). Then, plans were analyzed using several dosimetrical indices: the prescription isodose to target volume (PITV) ratio, homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), target coverage index (TCI), modified dose HI (MHI), conformity number (CN), and quality factor (QF). Furthermore, dose-volume histogram of critical structures and critical organ scoring index (COSI) were used to analyze organs at risk (OAR) sparing. Interestingly, treatment plans with a field width of 1 cm showed more favorable results than others in the planning target volume (PTV) and OAR indices. However, the treatment time of the 1-cm field width was 3 times longer than that of plans with a field width of 5 cm. There was no substantial decrease in treatment time when the pitch was increased from 0.172 to 0.43, but the PTV indices were slightly compromised. As expected, field width had the most significant influence on all of the indices including PTV, OAR, and treatment time. For the patients with good performance who can tolerate a longer treatment time, we suggest a field width of 1 cm, pitch of 0.172, and modulation factor of 1.8; for the patients with poor performance status, field width of 5 cm, pitch of 0.287, and a modulation factor of 3.5 should be considered.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)285-289
Number of pages5
JournalMedical Dosimetry
Volume40
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

Prostatic Neoplasms
Organs at Risk
Therapeutics
Prescriptions

Keywords

  • Dose-volume histogram
  • Dosimetrical index
  • Plan optimization
  • Tomotherapy
  • Treatment plan parameters

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Patient performance-based plan parameter optimization for prostate cancer in tomotherapy. / Cao, Yuan Jie; Lee, Suk; Chang, Kyung Hwan; Shim, Jang Bo; Kim, Kwang Hyeon; Park, Young Je; Kim, Chul Yong.

In: Medical Dosimetry, Vol. 40, No. 4, 2015, p. 285-289.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Cao, Yuan Jie ; Lee, Suk ; Chang, Kyung Hwan ; Shim, Jang Bo ; Kim, Kwang Hyeon ; Park, Young Je ; Kim, Chul Yong. / Patient performance-based plan parameter optimization for prostate cancer in tomotherapy. In: Medical Dosimetry. 2015 ; Vol. 40, No. 4. pp. 285-289.
@article{3475a8863ee749bbb66ffedf55873d53,
title = "Patient performance-based plan parameter optimization for prostate cancer in tomotherapy",
abstract = "The purpose of this study is to evaluate the influence of treatment-planning parameters on the quality of treatment plans in tomotherapy and to find the optimized planning parameter combinations when treating patients with prostate cancer under different performances. A total of 3 patients with prostate cancer with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or 3 were included in this study. For each patient, 27 treatment plans were created using a combination of planning parameters (field width of 1, 2.5, and 5 cm; pitch of 0.172, 0.287, and 0.43; and modulation factor of 1.8, 3, and 3.5). Then, plans were analyzed using several dosimetrical indices: the prescription isodose to target volume (PITV) ratio, homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), target coverage index (TCI), modified dose HI (MHI), conformity number (CN), and quality factor (QF). Furthermore, dose-volume histogram of critical structures and critical organ scoring index (COSI) were used to analyze organs at risk (OAR) sparing. Interestingly, treatment plans with a field width of 1 cm showed more favorable results than others in the planning target volume (PTV) and OAR indices. However, the treatment time of the 1-cm field width was 3 times longer than that of plans with a field width of 5 cm. There was no substantial decrease in treatment time when the pitch was increased from 0.172 to 0.43, but the PTV indices were slightly compromised. As expected, field width had the most significant influence on all of the indices including PTV, OAR, and treatment time. For the patients with good performance who can tolerate a longer treatment time, we suggest a field width of 1 cm, pitch of 0.172, and modulation factor of 1.8; for the patients with poor performance status, field width of 5 cm, pitch of 0.287, and a modulation factor of 3.5 should be considered.",
keywords = "Dose-volume histogram, Dosimetrical index, Plan optimization, Tomotherapy, Treatment plan parameters",
author = "Cao, {Yuan Jie} and Suk Lee and Chang, {Kyung Hwan} and Shim, {Jang Bo} and Kim, {Kwang Hyeon} and Park, {Young Je} and Kim, {Chul Yong}",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1016/j.meddos.2015.03.005",
language = "English",
volume = "40",
pages = "285--289",
journal = "Medical Dosimetry",
issn = "0958-3947",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Patient performance-based plan parameter optimization for prostate cancer in tomotherapy

AU - Cao, Yuan Jie

AU - Lee, Suk

AU - Chang, Kyung Hwan

AU - Shim, Jang Bo

AU - Kim, Kwang Hyeon

AU - Park, Young Je

AU - Kim, Chul Yong

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - The purpose of this study is to evaluate the influence of treatment-planning parameters on the quality of treatment plans in tomotherapy and to find the optimized planning parameter combinations when treating patients with prostate cancer under different performances. A total of 3 patients with prostate cancer with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or 3 were included in this study. For each patient, 27 treatment plans were created using a combination of planning parameters (field width of 1, 2.5, and 5 cm; pitch of 0.172, 0.287, and 0.43; and modulation factor of 1.8, 3, and 3.5). Then, plans were analyzed using several dosimetrical indices: the prescription isodose to target volume (PITV) ratio, homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), target coverage index (TCI), modified dose HI (MHI), conformity number (CN), and quality factor (QF). Furthermore, dose-volume histogram of critical structures and critical organ scoring index (COSI) were used to analyze organs at risk (OAR) sparing. Interestingly, treatment plans with a field width of 1 cm showed more favorable results than others in the planning target volume (PTV) and OAR indices. However, the treatment time of the 1-cm field width was 3 times longer than that of plans with a field width of 5 cm. There was no substantial decrease in treatment time when the pitch was increased from 0.172 to 0.43, but the PTV indices were slightly compromised. As expected, field width had the most significant influence on all of the indices including PTV, OAR, and treatment time. For the patients with good performance who can tolerate a longer treatment time, we suggest a field width of 1 cm, pitch of 0.172, and modulation factor of 1.8; for the patients with poor performance status, field width of 5 cm, pitch of 0.287, and a modulation factor of 3.5 should be considered.

AB - The purpose of this study is to evaluate the influence of treatment-planning parameters on the quality of treatment plans in tomotherapy and to find the optimized planning parameter combinations when treating patients with prostate cancer under different performances. A total of 3 patients with prostate cancer with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or 3 were included in this study. For each patient, 27 treatment plans were created using a combination of planning parameters (field width of 1, 2.5, and 5 cm; pitch of 0.172, 0.287, and 0.43; and modulation factor of 1.8, 3, and 3.5). Then, plans were analyzed using several dosimetrical indices: the prescription isodose to target volume (PITV) ratio, homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), target coverage index (TCI), modified dose HI (MHI), conformity number (CN), and quality factor (QF). Furthermore, dose-volume histogram of critical structures and critical organ scoring index (COSI) were used to analyze organs at risk (OAR) sparing. Interestingly, treatment plans with a field width of 1 cm showed more favorable results than others in the planning target volume (PTV) and OAR indices. However, the treatment time of the 1-cm field width was 3 times longer than that of plans with a field width of 5 cm. There was no substantial decrease in treatment time when the pitch was increased from 0.172 to 0.43, but the PTV indices were slightly compromised. As expected, field width had the most significant influence on all of the indices including PTV, OAR, and treatment time. For the patients with good performance who can tolerate a longer treatment time, we suggest a field width of 1 cm, pitch of 0.172, and modulation factor of 1.8; for the patients with poor performance status, field width of 5 cm, pitch of 0.287, and a modulation factor of 3.5 should be considered.

KW - Dose-volume histogram

KW - Dosimetrical index

KW - Plan optimization

KW - Tomotherapy

KW - Treatment plan parameters

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84960453696&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84960453696&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.meddos.2015.03.005

DO - 10.1016/j.meddos.2015.03.005

M3 - Article

VL - 40

SP - 285

EP - 289

JO - Medical Dosimetry

JF - Medical Dosimetry

SN - 0958-3947

IS - 4

ER -