Robustness quantification methods comparison in volumetric modulated arc therapy to treat head and neck cancer

Wei Liu, Samir H. Patel, Jiajian Shen, Yanle Hu, Daniel P. Harrington, Xiaoning Ding, Michele Y. Halyard, Steven E. Schild, William W. Wong, Gary A. Ezzell, Martin Bues

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: To compare plan robustness of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and to compare the effectiveness of 3 plan robustness quantification methods. Methods and materials: The VMAT and IMRT plans were created for 9 head and neck cancer patients. For each plan, 6 new perturbed dose distributions were computed using ±3 mm setup deviations along each of the 3 orientations. Worst-case analysis (WCA), dose-volume histogram (DVH) band (DVHB), and root-mean-square dose-volume histogram (RVH) were used to quantify plan robustness. In WCA, a shaded area in the DVH plot bounded by the DVHs from the lowest and highest dose per voxel was displayed. In DVHB, we displayed the envelope of all DVHs in band graphs of all the 7 dose distributions. The RVH represents the relative volume on the vertical axis and the root-mean-square-dose on the horizontal axis. The width from the first 2 methods at different target DVH indices (such as D95% and D5%) and the area under the RVH curve for the target were used to indicate plan robustness. Results were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: The DVHB showed that the width at D95% of IMRT was larger than that of VMAT (unit Gy) (1.59 vs 1.18) and the width at D5% of IMRT was comparable to that of VMAT (0.59 vs 0.54). The WCA showed similar results between IMRT and VMAT plans (D95%: 3.28 vs 3.00; D5%: 1.68 vs 1.95). The RVH showed the area under the RVH curve of IMRT was comparable to that of VMAT (1.13 vs 1.15). No statistical significance was found in plan robustness between IMRT and VMAT. Conclusions: The VMAT is comparable to IMRT in terms of plan robustness. For the 3 quantification methods, WCA and DVHB are DVH parameter-dependent, whereas RVH captures the overall effect of uncertainties.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalPractical Radiation Oncology
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Nov 10 2015

Fingerprint

Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy
Head and Neck Neoplasms
Radiotherapy
Area Under Curve
Nonparametric Statistics
Uncertainty

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Robustness quantification methods comparison in volumetric modulated arc therapy to treat head and neck cancer. / Liu, Wei; Patel, Samir H.; Shen, Jiajian; Hu, Yanle; Harrington, Daniel P.; Ding, Xiaoning; Halyard, Michele Y.; Schild, Steven E.; Wong, William W.; Ezzell, Gary A.; Bues, Martin.

In: Practical Radiation Oncology, 10.11.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Liu, Wei ; Patel, Samir H. ; Shen, Jiajian ; Hu, Yanle ; Harrington, Daniel P. ; Ding, Xiaoning ; Halyard, Michele Y. ; Schild, Steven E. ; Wong, William W. ; Ezzell, Gary A. ; Bues, Martin. / Robustness quantification methods comparison in volumetric modulated arc therapy to treat head and neck cancer. In: Practical Radiation Oncology. 2015.
@article{3b1c6cab7974403b9232e9018be07b04,
title = "Robustness quantification methods comparison in volumetric modulated arc therapy to treat head and neck cancer",
abstract = "Background: To compare plan robustness of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and to compare the effectiveness of 3 plan robustness quantification methods. Methods and materials: The VMAT and IMRT plans were created for 9 head and neck cancer patients. For each plan, 6 new perturbed dose distributions were computed using ±3 mm setup deviations along each of the 3 orientations. Worst-case analysis (WCA), dose-volume histogram (DVH) band (DVHB), and root-mean-square dose-volume histogram (RVH) were used to quantify plan robustness. In WCA, a shaded area in the DVH plot bounded by the DVHs from the lowest and highest dose per voxel was displayed. In DVHB, we displayed the envelope of all DVHs in band graphs of all the 7 dose distributions. The RVH represents the relative volume on the vertical axis and the root-mean-square-dose on the horizontal axis. The width from the first 2 methods at different target DVH indices (such as D95{\%} and D5{\%}) and the area under the RVH curve for the target were used to indicate plan robustness. Results were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: The DVHB showed that the width at D95{\%} of IMRT was larger than that of VMAT (unit Gy) (1.59 vs 1.18) and the width at D5{\%} of IMRT was comparable to that of VMAT (0.59 vs 0.54). The WCA showed similar results between IMRT and VMAT plans (D95{\%}: 3.28 vs 3.00; D5{\%}: 1.68 vs 1.95). The RVH showed the area under the RVH curve of IMRT was comparable to that of VMAT (1.13 vs 1.15). No statistical significance was found in plan robustness between IMRT and VMAT. Conclusions: The VMAT is comparable to IMRT in terms of plan robustness. For the 3 quantification methods, WCA and DVHB are DVH parameter-dependent, whereas RVH captures the overall effect of uncertainties.",
author = "Wei Liu and Patel, {Samir H.} and Jiajian Shen and Yanle Hu and Harrington, {Daniel P.} and Xiaoning Ding and Halyard, {Michele Y.} and Schild, {Steven E.} and Wong, {William W.} and Ezzell, {Gary A.} and Martin Bues",
year = "2015",
month = "11",
day = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.prro.2016.02.002",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Practical Radiation Oncology",
issn = "1879-8500",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Robustness quantification methods comparison in volumetric modulated arc therapy to treat head and neck cancer

AU - Liu, Wei

AU - Patel, Samir H.

AU - Shen, Jiajian

AU - Hu, Yanle

AU - Harrington, Daniel P.

AU - Ding, Xiaoning

AU - Halyard, Michele Y.

AU - Schild, Steven E.

AU - Wong, William W.

AU - Ezzell, Gary A.

AU - Bues, Martin

PY - 2015/11/10

Y1 - 2015/11/10

N2 - Background: To compare plan robustness of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and to compare the effectiveness of 3 plan robustness quantification methods. Methods and materials: The VMAT and IMRT plans were created for 9 head and neck cancer patients. For each plan, 6 new perturbed dose distributions were computed using ±3 mm setup deviations along each of the 3 orientations. Worst-case analysis (WCA), dose-volume histogram (DVH) band (DVHB), and root-mean-square dose-volume histogram (RVH) were used to quantify plan robustness. In WCA, a shaded area in the DVH plot bounded by the DVHs from the lowest and highest dose per voxel was displayed. In DVHB, we displayed the envelope of all DVHs in band graphs of all the 7 dose distributions. The RVH represents the relative volume on the vertical axis and the root-mean-square-dose on the horizontal axis. The width from the first 2 methods at different target DVH indices (such as D95% and D5%) and the area under the RVH curve for the target were used to indicate plan robustness. Results were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: The DVHB showed that the width at D95% of IMRT was larger than that of VMAT (unit Gy) (1.59 vs 1.18) and the width at D5% of IMRT was comparable to that of VMAT (0.59 vs 0.54). The WCA showed similar results between IMRT and VMAT plans (D95%: 3.28 vs 3.00; D5%: 1.68 vs 1.95). The RVH showed the area under the RVH curve of IMRT was comparable to that of VMAT (1.13 vs 1.15). No statistical significance was found in plan robustness between IMRT and VMAT. Conclusions: The VMAT is comparable to IMRT in terms of plan robustness. For the 3 quantification methods, WCA and DVHB are DVH parameter-dependent, whereas RVH captures the overall effect of uncertainties.

AB - Background: To compare plan robustness of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and to compare the effectiveness of 3 plan robustness quantification methods. Methods and materials: The VMAT and IMRT plans were created for 9 head and neck cancer patients. For each plan, 6 new perturbed dose distributions were computed using ±3 mm setup deviations along each of the 3 orientations. Worst-case analysis (WCA), dose-volume histogram (DVH) band (DVHB), and root-mean-square dose-volume histogram (RVH) were used to quantify plan robustness. In WCA, a shaded area in the DVH plot bounded by the DVHs from the lowest and highest dose per voxel was displayed. In DVHB, we displayed the envelope of all DVHs in band graphs of all the 7 dose distributions. The RVH represents the relative volume on the vertical axis and the root-mean-square-dose on the horizontal axis. The width from the first 2 methods at different target DVH indices (such as D95% and D5%) and the area under the RVH curve for the target were used to indicate plan robustness. Results were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: The DVHB showed that the width at D95% of IMRT was larger than that of VMAT (unit Gy) (1.59 vs 1.18) and the width at D5% of IMRT was comparable to that of VMAT (0.59 vs 0.54). The WCA showed similar results between IMRT and VMAT plans (D95%: 3.28 vs 3.00; D5%: 1.68 vs 1.95). The RVH showed the area under the RVH curve of IMRT was comparable to that of VMAT (1.13 vs 1.15). No statistical significance was found in plan robustness between IMRT and VMAT. Conclusions: The VMAT is comparable to IMRT in terms of plan robustness. For the 3 quantification methods, WCA and DVHB are DVH parameter-dependent, whereas RVH captures the overall effect of uncertainties.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84962135642&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84962135642&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.prro.2016.02.002

DO - 10.1016/j.prro.2016.02.002

M3 - Article

C2 - 27025166

AN - SCOPUS:84962135642

JO - Practical Radiation Oncology

JF - Practical Radiation Oncology

SN - 1879-8500

ER -