Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T16:34:25.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A new method for risk factor assessment of organs at risk including conformity index in radiotherapy treatment plan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2020

Shahanawaj Ansari Open the ORCID record for Shahanawaj Ansari [Opens in a new window] ,
Mukesh Kumar Zope  and
Neha Yadav
Shahanawaj Ansari*
Affiliation:
Apollo Hospitals Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, India
Mukesh Kumar Zope
Affiliation:
Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Science, Patna, Bihar, India
Neha Yadav
Affiliation:
Apollo Hospitals Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, India
*
Author for correspondence: Shahanawaj Ansari, Medical Physics Department, Apollo Hospitals Bilaspur, Basant Vihar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh495006, India. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

A comprehensive analysing method has been required since long in the field of radiotherapy. The basic purpose of all techniques has been to deliver the prescribed dose safely to the target volume containing tumour and as well as to reduce dose to organs at risk (OARs). The detailed comparison between different treatment techniques is very difficult and inexplicit as well. The gradual improvement in imaging software has made easy to users to assess spatial arrangement of tumour, critical organs and isodose lines in the form of a single 3D representation that can be observed from all angles. The conformity index (CI) alone cannot provide practical information about treatment plans as it is a single isodose line quantity.

Aim:

The aim of this study was to develop a new method to assess the degree of damage numerically for OARs along with CI assessment for the target.

Materials and Methods:

The radiotherapy plans of 30 patients of different sites, diagnosed as cancer, were selected for this study irrespective of gender. Out of 30 cases, 8 plans were of head and neck, 2 were of glyoblastoma (GBM), 10 were of pelvis, 5 were of left breast and other 5 were of oesophagus cancer. The mean age was 42 years ranging from 31 to 72 years. Patient’s consents were taken before starting the treatment and carried out this research. Risk factor (RF) for OARs depends on volume of irradiation (VVOI), total volume of the organ (VTVO) and tolerance dose (DTDO). All radiotherapy plans (Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT)) were generated using eclipse planning system, version 11.0 (Varian Medical System, Palo Alto, California, USA).

Result:

The formula developed to assess degree of damage of OARs including CI of the target is risk factor conformity index (RFC) = CI + RF. In head and neck cases, for right parotid, the maximum value of RF is 1·50 and minimum value is observed as 0·97. Optic nerve, brainstem and spinal cord are completely safe as their RF values are found to be 0 on RF scale.

Conclusion:

RFC is a comprehensive evaluation tool encompassing a wider range of clinically relevant parameters, isodose volumes and tolerance dose of OARs. It is an advance analysing method to check both the qualitative and quantitative nature of a conformal plan, and at the same time, it assesses the degree of damage of OARs.

If RF ≥ 1, then OAR will be completely damaged as a result of irradiation.

If RF = 0, then OAR will remain safe totally during the course of irradiation.

Keywords

cancerIMRTisodose lineorgan at riskrisk factor
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , June 2021 , pp. 144 - 152
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ansari, S, Satpathy, S K, Ahmad, I et al. A new index: triple point Conformity Scale (CS3) and its implication in qualitative evaluation of radiotherapy plan. J Radiother Pract 2018; 17 (3): 309–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huchet, A, Caudry, M, Belkacémi, Y et al. Volume-effect and radiotherapy part two: volume-effect and normal tissue. Cancer Radiother 2003; 7: 353–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menzel, H. Prescribing, recording and reporting photon beam therapy (supplement to ICRU Report 50). Report 62, International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, Washington, DC, 1993.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J, Raben, A, Zelefsky, M et al. Promising survival with three dimensional conformal radiation therapy for non small cell lung cancer. Radiother Oncol 1997; 44: 17–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Armstrong, J, McGibney, C. The impact of three-dimensional radiation on the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Radiother Oncol 2000; 56 157–167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dearnaley, D P, Khoo, V S, Norman, A R et al. Comparison of radiation side-effects of conformal and conventional radiotherapy in prostate cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 1999; 353: 267–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, W R, Hanks, G E, Hanlon, A L et al. Lateral rectal shielding reduces late rectal morbidity following high dose three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer: further evidence for a significant dose effect. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol. Phys 1996; 35: 251–257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petrova, D, Smickovska, S, Lazarevska, E. Conformity index and homogeneity index of the postoperative whole breast radiotherapy. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2017; 5(6): 736–739.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenwald, J C, Gaboriaud, G, Pontvert, D. [Conformal radio-therapy: principles and classification].Cancer Radiother 1999; 3: 367–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrie, C, Ginestet, C, Bey, P et al. Conformal radiation therapy. Federation nationale des centres de lutte contre le cancer (FNCLCC). Bull Cancer 1995; 82: 325–330.Google Scholar
Carrie, C, Ginestet, C. [New techniques and methods in trans-cutaneous radiotherapy]. Bull Cancer 2001; 88: 59–65.Google Scholar
Feuvret, L, Noël, G, Mazeron, J J, Bey, P. Conformity index: a review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 64 (2): 333–342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marks, L B. Use of normal tissue complication probability models in the clinic. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 76 (3 Suppl.): S10–S19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emami, B. Tolerance of normal tissue to therapeutic radiation. Rep Radiother Oncol 2013; 1 (1): 123–127.Google Scholar
Nakamura, J L, Verhey, L J, Smith, V et al. Dose conformity of gamma knife radiosurgery and risk factors for complications. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001; 51: 1313–1319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knoos, T, Kristensen, I, Nilsson, P. Volumetric and dosimetric evaluation of radiation treatment plans: radiation conformity index. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998; 42: 1169–1176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed