How well are clinical gross tumor volume DVHs approximated by an analytical function?

Stavrev, Pavel; Schinkel, Colleen; Stavreva, Nadia; Falloned, B.

doi:10.2478/v10019-009-0016-x

Abstract

The dose heterogeneity in the tumor is often described as being normally distributed. Besides the normal distribution we propose the Fermi function describing Fermi statistics as a possible dose heterogeneity descriptor. In order to demonstrate the adequacy of the proposed functions as dose distribution descriptors 30 clinical gross tumor volume (GTV) dose-volume histograms (DVHs) are gathered and fit with the examined functions.

References

Ebert MA. Viability of the EUD and TCP concepts as reliable dose indicators. Phys Med Biol 2000; 45: 441-57.10.1088/0031-9155/45/2/313
Search in Google Scholar
Stavrev P, Schinkel C, Stavreva N, Warkentin B, Fallone B. Population TCP estimators in case of heterogeneous irradiation. Radiother Oncol 2007; 84: S279-S80.
Search in Google Scholar
Nahum AE, Sanchez-Nieto B. Tumour control probability modelling: basic principles and applications in treatment planning. Physica Medica 2001; XVII(Suppl 2): 13-23.
Search in Google Scholar
Wu Q, Mohan R, Niemierko A, Schmidt-Ullrich R. Optimization of intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans based on the equivalent uniform dose. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002; 52: 224-35.10.1016/S0360-3016(01)02585-8
Search in Google Scholar
De Gersem WR, Derycke S, Colle CO, De Wagter C, De Neve WJ. Inhomogeneous target-dose distributions: a dimension more for optimization? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999; 44: 461-8.10.1016/S0360-3016(98)00464-7
Search in Google Scholar
De Gersem WR, Derycke S, De Wagter C, De Neve WC. Optimization of beam weights in conformal radiotherapy planning of stage III non-small cell lung cancer: effects on therapeutic ratio. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000; 47: 255-60.10.1016/S0360-3016(99)00332-6
Search in Google Scholar
Mohan R, Mageras GS, Baldwin B, Brewster LJ, Kutcher GJ, Leibel S, et al. Clinically relevant optimization of 3-D conformal treatments. Med Phys 1992; 19: 933-44.10.1118/1.596781
Search in Google Scholar
Teh BS, Mai WY, Uhl BM, Augspurger ME, Grant WH 3rd, Lu HH, et al. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer with the use of a rectal balloon for prostate immobilization: acute toxicity and dose-volume analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001; 49: 705-12.10.1016/S0360-3016(00)01428-0
Search in Google Scholar
Reinstein LE, Wang XH, Burman CM, Chen Z, Mohan R, Kutcher G, et al. A feasibility study of automated inverse treatment planning for cancer of the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998; 40: 207-14.10.1016/S0360-3016(97)00582-8
Search in Google Scholar
Stanescu T, Hans-Sonke J, Stavrev P, Fallone B. 3T MR-based treatment planning for radiotherapy of brain lesions. Radiol Oncol 2006; 40: 125-32.
Search in Google Scholar
Bos LJ, Damen EMF, DeBoer RW, Mijnheer BJ, McShan DL, Fraass BA, et al. Reduction of rectal dose by integration of the boost in the large-field treatment plan for prostate irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002; 52: 254-65.10.1016/S0360-3016(01)02676-1
Search in Google Scholar
Nederveen AJ, VanderHeide UA, Hofman P, Welleweerd H, Lagendijk JJW. Partial boosting of prostate tumours. Radiother Oncol 2001; 61: 117-26.10.1016/S0167-8140(01)00405-4
Search in Google Scholar
Nutting CM, Rowbottom CG, Cosgrove VP, Henk JM, Dearnaley DP, Robinson MH, et al. Optimisation of radiotherapy for carcinoma of the parotid gland: a comparison of conventional, three-dimensional conformal, and intensitymodulated techniques. Radiother Oncol 2001; 60: 157-63.10.1016/S0167-8140(01)00438-8
Search in Google Scholar
Ólafsson A, Jeraj R, Wright SJ. Optimization of intensity-modulated radiation therapy with biological objectives. Phys Med Biol 2005; 50: 5357-79.10.1088/0031-9155/50/22/01016264258
Search in Google Scholar
Stavrev P, Stavreva N, Schinkel C, Fallone B. An objective function for TCP/NTCP curve fitting. Med Phys 2007; 34: 2417-8.10.1118/1.2760725
Search in Google Scholar

How well are clinical gross tumor volume DVHs approximated by an analytical function?

Abstract

Paradigm

My account