The effect of set‐up uncertainties, contour changes, and tissue inhomogeneities on target dose‐volume histograms
- 24 September 2002
- journal article
- Published by Wiley in Medical Physics
- Vol. 29 (10) , 2305-2318
- https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1508800
Abstract
Understanding set-up uncertainty effects on dose distributions is an important clinical problem but difficult to model accurately due to their dependence on tissue inhomogeneities and changes in the surface contour (i.e., variant effects). The aims are: (1) to evaluate and quantify the invariant and variant effects of set-up uncertainties, contour changes and tissue inhomogeneities on target dose–volume histograms (DVHs); (2) to propose a method to interpolate (variant) DVHs. We present a lungcancer patient to estimate the significance of set-up uncertainties, contour changes and tissue inhomogeneities in target DVHs. Differential DVHs are calculated for 15 displacement errors (with respect to the isocenter) using (1) an invariant shift of the dose distribution at the isocenter, (2) a full variant calculation, and (3) a B-spline interpolation applied to sparsely sampled variant DVHs. The collapsed cone algorithm was used for all dose calculations. Dosimetric differences are quantified with the root mean square (RMS) deviation and the equivalent uniform dose (EUD). To determine set-up uncertainty effects, weighted mean EUDs, assuming normally distributed displacement errors, are used. The maximum absolute difference and RMS deviation in the integral DVHs’ relative dose between (1) the invariant and calculated curves are 65.2% and 5.8% and (2) the interpolated and calculated curves are 16.9% and 2.5%. Similarly, the maximum absolute difference and RMS deviation in mean EUD as a function of the set-up uncertainty’s standard deviation between (1) the invariant and calculated curves are 0.02 and 0.01 Gy; and (2) the interpolated and calculated curves are 0.01 and 0.006 Gy. Since a “worst-case” example is selected, we conclude that, in the majority of clinical cases, the variant effects of contour changes, tissue inhomogeneities and set-up uncertainties on EUD are negligible. Interpolation is a valid, efficient method to approximate DVHs.Keywords
This publication has 26 references indexed in Scilit:
- Comparison of the Batho, ETAR and Monte Carlo dose calculation methods in CT based patient modelsMedical Physics, 2001
- Applying the equivalent uniform dose formulation based on the linear-quadratic model to inhomogeneous tumor dose distributions: Caution for analyzing and reportingJournal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 2000
- Photon dose calculation of a three‐dimensional treatment planning system compared to the Monte Carlo code BEAMMedical Physics, 2000
- A method for incorporating organ motion due to breathing into 3D dose calculationsMedical Physics, 1999
- Reporting and analyzing dose distributions: A concept of equivalent uniform doseMedical Physics, 1997
- Scattered data interpolation with multilevel B-splinesIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 1997
- Target margins for random geometrical treatment uncertainties in conformal radiotherapyMedical Physics, 1996
- Tolerances in setup and dosimetric errors in the radiation treatment of breast cancerInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, 1993
- Collapsed cone convolution of radiant energy for photon dose calculation in heterogeneous mediaMedical Physics, 1989