Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Comparison of treatment plans: a retrospective study by the method of radiobiological evaluation Cover

Comparison of treatment plans: a retrospective study by the method of radiobiological evaluation

Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering
Volume 22 (2016): Issue 3 (September 2016)
By: Niyas Puzhakkal,  Abdullah Kallikuzhiyil Kochunny,  Noufal Manthala Padannayil,  Navin Singh,  Jumanath Elavan Chalil and  Jamshad Kulangarakath Umer  
Open Access
|Sep 2016

References

  1. [1] Yu CX. Intensity modulated arc therapy: A new method for delivering conformal radiation therapy. The theory & practice of intensity modulated radiation therapy. Madison, WI: Advanced Medical Publishing; 1997:107-20.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  2. [2] Mavroidis P, Lind BK, Brahme A. Biologically effective uniform dose (D) for specification, report and comparison of dose response relations and treatment plans. Phys Med Biol. 2001;46(10):2607-2630.10.1088/0031-9155/46/10/307
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  3. [3] Mohan R, Wang X, Jackson A, et al. The potential and limitations of the inverse radiotherapy technique. Radiother Oncol. 1994;32(3):232-348.10.1016/0167-8140(94)90023-X
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  4. [4] Vineberg KA, Eisbruch A, Coselmon MM, et al. Is uniform target dose possible in IMRT plans in the head and neck? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;52(5):1159-1172.10.1016/S0360-3016(01)02800-0
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  5. [5] Miften MM, Das SK, Su M, et al. A dose-volume based tool for evaluating and ranking IMRT treatment plans. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2004;5(4):1-14.10.1120/jacmp.v5i4.1981
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  6. [6] Mayo C, Yorke E, Merchant TE. Radiation associated brainstem injury. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76(3Suppl):S36-S41.10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.08.078
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  7. [7] Mayo C, Martel MK, Marks LB, et al. Radiation dose–volume effects of optic nerves and chiasm. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76(3Suppl):S28-S35.10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.07.1753
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  8. [8] Kirkpatrick JP, van der Kogel AJ, Schultheiss TE. Radiation dose-volume effects in the spinal cord. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76(3Suppl):S42-S49.10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.04.095
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  9. [9] Bhandare N, Jackson A, Eisbruch A, et al. Radiation therapy and hearing loss. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76(3Suppl):S50-S57.10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.04.096
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  10. [10] Emami B, Lyman J, Brown A, et al. Tolerance of normal tissue to therapeutic irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991;21(1):109-122.10.1016/0360-3016(91)90171-Y
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  11. [11] Rubin P. Law and order of radiation sensitivity: absolute versus relative. In: Vaeth JM, Meyer JL, eds. Frontiers of radiation therapy and oncology. Basel: Karger;1989:7-40.10.1159/000416568
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  12. [12] Deasy JO, Moiseenko V, Marks L, et al. Radiotherapy dose–volume effects on salivary gland function. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76(3Suppl):S58-S63.10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.06.090
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  13. [13] Lawton CA, Michalski J, El-Naqa I, et al. RTOG GU Radiation oncology specialists reach consensus on pelvic lymph node volumes for high-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;74(2):383-387.10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.08.002
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  14. [14] Viswanathan AN, Yorke ED, Marks LB, et al. Radiation dose–volume effects of the urinary bladder. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76(3Suppl):S116-S122.10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.02.090
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  15. [15] Michalski JM, Gay H, Jackson A, et al. Radiation dose–volume effects in radiation-induced rectal injury. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76(3Suppl):S123-S129.10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.03.078
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  16. [16] Niemierko A. Reporting and analyzing dose distributions: a concept of equivalent uniform dose. Med Phys. 1997;24(1):103-110.10.1118/1.598063
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  17. [17] Thames HD, Zhang M, Tucker SL, et al. Cluster models of dose–volume effects. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.. 2004;59(5):1491-1504.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  18. [18] Lyman JT. Complication probability as assessed from dose-volume histograms. Radiat Res Suppl. 1985;8:S13-S19.10.2307/3583506
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  19. [19] Niemierko A, Goitein M. Modeling of normal tissue response to radiation: the critical volume model. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993;25(1):135-145.10.1016/0360-3016(93)90156-P
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  20. [20] Anbumani S, Raj NA, Prabhakar GS, et al. Quantification of uncertainties in conventional plan evaluation methods in Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy. J BUON. 2014;19(1):297-303.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  21. [21] Gay HA, Niemierko A. A free program for calculating EUD-based NTCP and TCP in external beam radiotherapy. Physica Medica. 2007;23(3):115-125.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  22. [22] Niemierko A. A generalized concept of equivalent uniform dose (EUD). Med Phys. 1999;26(6):1100.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  23. [23] Oinam AS, Singh L, Shukla A, et al. Dose volume histogram analysis and comparison of different radiobiological models using in-house developed software. J Med Phys. 2011;36(4):220-229.10.4103/0971-6203.89971324973322228931
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  24. [24] Rana S, Cheng C. Radiobiological impact of planning techniques for prostate cancer in terms of tumor control probability and normal tissue complication probability. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2015;4(2):167-172.10.4103/2141-9248.129023399193424761232
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  25. [25] Jaganathan A, Tiwari M, Phansekar R, et al. Intensity-modulated radiation to spare neural stem cells in brain tumors: a computational platform for evaluation of physical and biological dose metrics. J Cancer Res Ther. 2011;7(1):58-63.10.4103/0973-1482.8046321546744
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  26. [26] Kehwar TS. Analytical approach to estimate normal tissue complication probability using best fit of normal tissue tolerance doses into the NTCP equation of the linear quadratic model. J Cancer Res Ther. 2005;1(3):168-179.10.4103/0973-1482.1959717998649
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  27. [27] Rana S, Rogers K. Radiobiological evaluation of dose calculation algorithms in Rapid Arc planning of esophageal cancer treatment plans. J Solid Tumors. 2013;3(3):44-52.10.5430/jst.v3n3p44
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  28. [28] Akpati HC, Kim C, Kim B, et al. Unified dosimetry index (UDI): a figure of merit for ranking treatment plans. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2008;9(3):99-108.10.1120/jacmp.v9i3.2803572229818716596
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/pjmpe-2016-0011 | Journal eISSN: 1898-0309 | Journal ISSN: 1425-4689
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 61 - 68
Submitted on: Apr 17, 2016
Accepted on: Aug 29, 2016
Published on: Sep 24, 2016
Published by: Polish Society of Medical Physics
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Keywords:
plan evaluation,
EUD,
TCP,
NTCP,
DVH
Related subjects:
Medicine,
Biomedical engineering,
Physics,
Technical and applied physics,
Medical physics

© 2016 Niyas Puzhakkal, Abdullah Kallikuzhiyil Kochunny, Noufal Manthala Padannayil, Navin Singh, Jumanath Elavan Chalil, Jamshad Kulangarakath Umer, published by Polish Society of Medical Physics
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 22 (2016): Issue 3 (September 2016)Next article