Quality control of dose volume histogram computation characteristics of 3D treatment planning systems

Multicenter Multivendor Evaluation of Dose Volume Histogram Creation Consistencies for 8 Commercial Radiation Therapy Dosimetric Systems

PURPOSE

To evaluate dose volume histogram (DVH) construction differences across 8 major commercial treatment planning systems (TPS) and dose reporting systems for clinically treated plans of various anatomic sites and target sizes.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Dose files from 10 selected clinically treated plans with a hypofractionation, stereotactic radiation therapy prescription or sharp dose gradients such as head and neck plans ranging from prescription doses of 18 Gy in 1 fraction to 70 Gy in 35 fractions, each calculated at 0.25 and 0.125 cm grid size, were created and anonymized in Eclipse TPS, and exported to 7 other major TPS (Pinnacle, RayStation, and Elements) and dose reporting systems (MIM, Mobius, ProKnow, and Velocity) systems for comparison. Dose-volume constraint points of clinical importance for each plan were collected from each evaluated system (D0.03 cc [Gy], volume, and the mean dose were used for structures without specified constraints). Each reported constraint type and structure volume was normalized to the value from Eclipse for a pairwise comparison. A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for statistical significance and a multivariable regression model was evaluated adjusting for plan, grid size, and distance to target center.

RESULTS

For all DVH points relative to Eclipse, all systems reported median values within 1.0% difference of each other; however, they were all different from Eclipse. Considering mean values, Pinnacle, RayStation, and Elements averaged at 1.038, 1.046, and 1.024, respectively, while MIM, Mobius, ProKnow, and Velocity reported 1.026, 1.050, 1.033, and 1.022, respectively relative to Eclipse. Smaller dose grid size improved agreement between the systems marginally without statistical significance. For structure volumes relative to Eclipse, larger differences are seen across all systems with a range in median values up to 3.0% difference and mean up to 10.1% difference.

CONCLUSIONS

Large variations were observed between all systems. Eclipse generally reported, at statistically significant levels, lower values than all other evaluated systems. The nonsignificant change resulting from lowering the dose grid resolution indicates that this resolution may be less important than other aspects of calculating DVH curves, such as the 3-dimensional modeling of the structure.

Accuracy of dose-volume metric calculation for small-volume radiosurgery targets

PURPOSE

For stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), accurate evaluation of dose-volume metrics for small structures is necessary. The purpose of this study was to compare the DVH metric capabilities of five commercially available SRS DVH analysis tools (Eclipse, Elements, Raystation, MIM, and Velocity).

METHODS

DICOM RTdose and RTstructure set files created using MATLAB were imported and evaluated in each of the tools. Each structure set consisted of 50 randomly placed spherical targets. The dose distributions were created on a 1-mm grid using an analytic model such that the dose-volume metrics of the spheres were known. Structure sets were created for 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, and 20 mm diameter spheres. The reported structure volume, V100% [cc], and V50% [cc], and the RTOG conformity index and Paddick Gradient Index, were compared with the analytical values.

RESULTS

The average difference and range across all evaluated target sizes for the reported structure volume was - 4.73%[-33.2,0.2], 0.11%[-10.9, 9.5], -0.39%[-12.1, 7.0], -2.24%[-21.0, 1.3], and 1.15%[-15.1,0.8], for TPS-A through TPS-E, respectively. The average difference and range for the V100%[cc] (V20Gy[cc]) was - 0.4[-24.5,9.8], -2.73[-23.6, 1.1], -3.01[-23.6, 0.6], -3.79[-27.3, 1.3], and 0.26[-6.1,2.6] for TPS-A through TPS-E, respectively. For V50%[cc](V10Gy[cc]) in TPS-A through TPS-E the average and ranger were - 0.05[-0.8,0.4], -0.18[-1.2, 0.5], -0.44[-1.4, 0.3], -0.26[-1.8, 2.6], and 0.09[-1.4,2.7].

CONCLUSION

This study expanded on the previously published literature to quantitatively compare the DVH analysis capabilities of software commonly used for SRS plan evaluation and provides freely available and downloadable analytically derived set of ground truth DICOM dose and structure files for the use of radiotherapy clinics. The differences between systems highlight the need for standardization and/or transparency between systems, especially when evaluating plan quality for multi-institutional clinical trials.

Addendum to brachytherapy dose-volume histogram commissioning with multiple planning systems

The process for validating dose-volume histogram data in brachytherapy software is presented as a supplement to a previously published article. Included is the DVH accuracy evaluation of the Best NOMOS treatment planning system called "Best TPS VolumePlan." As done previously in other software, a rectangular cuboid was contoured in the treatment planning system. A single radioactive 125I source was positioned coplanar and concentric with one end. Calculations were performed to estimate dose deposition in partial volumes of the cuboid structure, using the brachytherapy dosimetry formalism defined in AAPM Task Group 43. Hand-calculated, dose-volume results were compared to TPS-generated, point-source-approximated dose-volume histogram data to establish acceptance. The required QA for commissioning was satisfied for the DVH as conducted previously for other software, using the criterion that the DVH %VolTPS "actual variance" calculations should differ by no more than 5% at any specific radial distance with respect to %VolTG-43, and the "average variance" DVH %VolTPS calculations should differ by no more than 2% over all radial distances with respect to %VolTG-43. The average disagreement observed between hand calculations and treatment planning system DVH was less than 0.5% on average for this treatment planning system and less than 1.1% maximally for 1 ≤ r ≤ 5 cm.

Methods, software and datasets to verify DVH calculations against analytical values: Twenty years late(r)

PURPOSE

The authors designed data, methods, and metrics that can serve as a standard, independent of any software package, to evaluate dose-volume histogram (DVH) calculation accuracy and detect limitations. The authors use simple geometrical objects at different orientations combined with dose grids of varying spatial resolution with linear 1D dose gradients; when combined, ground truth DVH curves can be calculated analytically in closed form to serve as the absolute standards.

METHODS

dicom RT structure sets containing a small sphere, cylinder, and cone were created programmatically with axial plane spacing varying from 0.2 to 3 mm. Cylinders and cones were modeled in two different orientations with respect to the IEC 1217 Y axis. The contours were designed to stringently but methodically test voxelation methods required for DVH. Synthetic RT dose files were generated with 1D linear dose gradient and with grid resolution varying from 0.4 to 3 mm. Two commercial DVH algorithms-pinnacle (Philips Radiation Oncology Systems) and PlanIQ (Sun Nuclear Corp.)-were tested against analytical values using custom, noncommercial analysis software. In Test 1, axial contour spacing was constant at 0.2 mm while dose grid resolution varied. In Tests 2 and 3, the dose grid resolution was matched to varying subsampled axial contours with spacing of 1, 2, and 3 mm, and difference analysis and metrics were employed: (1) histograms of the accuracy of various DVH parameters (total volume, Dmax, Dmin, and doses to % volume: D99, D95, D5, D1, D0.03 cm(3)) and (2) volume errors extracted along the DVH curves were generated and summarized in tabular and graphical forms.

RESULTS

In Test 1, pinnacle produced 52 deviations (15%) while PlanIQ produced 5 (1.5%). In Test 2, pinnacle and PlanIQ differed from analytical by >3% in 93 (36%) and 18 (7%) times, respectively. Excluding Dmin and Dmax as least clinically relevant would result in 32 (15%) vs 5 (2%) scored deviations for pinnacle vs PlanIQ in Test 1, while Test 2 would yield 53 (25%) vs 17 (8%). In Test 3, statistical analyses of volume errors extracted continuously along the curves show pinnacle to have more errors and higher variability (relative to PlanIQ), primarily due to pinnacle's lack of sufficient 3D grid supersampling. Another major driver for pinnacle errors is an inconsistency in implementation of the "end-capping"; the additional volume resulting from expanding superior and inferior contours halfway to the next slice is included in the total volume calculation, but dose voxels in this expanded volume are excluded from the DVH. PlanIQ had fewer deviations, and most were associated with a rotated cylinder modeled by rectangular axial contours; for coarser axial spacing, the limited number of cross-sectional rectangles hinders the ability to render the true structure volume.

CONCLUSIONS

The method is applicable to any DVH-calculating software capable of importing dicom RT structure set and dose objects (the authors' examples are available for download). It includes a collection of tests that probe the design of the DVH algorithm, measure its accuracy, and identify failure modes. Merits and applicability of each test are discussed.

Brachytherapy dose-volume histogram commissioning with multiple planning systems

The first quality assurance process for validating dose‐volume histogram data involving brachytherapy procedures in radiation therapy is presented. The process is demonstrated using both low dose‐rate and high dose‐rate radionuclide sources. A rectangular cuboid was contoured in five commercially available brachytherapy treatment planning systems. A single radioactive source commissioned for QA testing was positioned coplanar and concentric with one end. Using the brachytherapy dosimetry formalism defined in the AAPM Task Group 43 report series, calculations were performed to estimate dose deposition in partial volumes of the cuboid structure. The point‐source approximation was used for a  125I source and the line‐source approximation was used for a  192Ir source in simulated permanent and temporary implants, respectively. Hand‐calculated, dose‐volume results were compared to TPS‐generated, dose‐volume histogram (DVH) data to ascertain acceptance. The average disagreement observed between hand calculations and the treatment planning system DVH was less than 1% for the five treatment planning systems and less than 5% for 1 cm≤r≤5 cm. A reproducible method for verifying the accuracy of volumetric statistics from a radiation therapy TPS can be employed. The process satisfies QA requirements for TPS commissioning, upgrading, and annual testing. We suggest that investigations be performed if the DVH%VolTPS “actual variance” calculations differ by more than 5% at any specific radial distance with respect to %VolTG−43, or if the “average variance” DVH DVH%VolTPS calculations differ by more than 2% over all radial distances with respect to %VolTG−43.

PACS numbers: 87.10.+e, 87.55.‐x, 87.53.Jw, 07.05.Tp

Dose-volume histogram quality assurance for linac-based treatment planning systems

Dose–volume histograms provide key information to radiation oncologists when they assess the adequacy of a patient treatment plan in radiation therapy. It is important therefore that all clinically relevant data be accurate. In this article we present the first quality assurance routine involving a direct comparison of planning system results with the results obtained from independent hand calculations. Given a known three-dimensional (3-D) structure such as a parallelepiped, a simple beam arrangement, and known physics beam data, a time-efficient and reproducible method for verifying the accuracy of volumetric statistics (DVH) from a radiation therapy treatment planning system (TPS) can be employed rapidly, satisfying the QA requirements for (TPS) commissioning, upgrades, and annual checks. Using this method, the maximum disagreement was only 1.7% for 6 MV and 1.3% for 18 MV photon energies. The average accuracy was within 0.6% for 6 MV and 0.4% for 18 MV for all depth-dose results. A 2% disagreement was observed with the treatment planning system DVH from defined volume comparison to the known structure dimensions.

Assessment of normal tissue complications following prostate cancer irradiation: comparison of radiation treatment modalities using NTCP models

PURPOSE

Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of the rectum, bladder, urethra, and femoral heads following several techniques for radiation treatment of prostate cancer were evaluated applying the relative seriality and Lyman models.

METHODS

Model parameters from literature were used in this evaluation. The treatment techniques included external (standard fractionated, hypofractionated, and dose-escalated) three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy (I-125 seeds), and high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy (Ir-192 source). Dose-volume histograms (DVHs) of the rectum, bladder, and urethra retrieved from corresponding treatment planning systems were converted to biological effective dose-based and equivalent dose-based DVHs, respectively, in order to account for differences in radiation treatment modality and fractionation schedule.

RESULTS

Results indicated that with hypofractionated 3D-CRT (20 fractions of 2.75 Gy/fraction delivered five times/week to total dose of 55 Gy), NTCP of the rectum, bladder, and urethra were less than those for standard fractionated 3D-CRT using a four-field technique (32 fractions of 2 Gy/fraction delivered five times/week to total dose of 64 Gy) and dose-escalated 3D-CRT. Rectal and bladder NTCPs (5.2% and 6.6%, respectively) following the dose-escalated four-field 3D-CRT (2 Gy/fraction to total dose of 74 Gy) were the highest among analyzed treatment techniques. The average NTCP for the rectum and urethra were 0.6% and 24.7% for LDR-BT and 0.5% and 11.2% for HDR-BT.

CONCLUSIONS

Although brachytherapy techniques resulted in delivering larger equivalent doses to normal tissues, the corresponding NTCPs were lower than those of external beam techniques other than the urethra because of much smaller volumes irradiated to higher doses. Among analyzed normal tissues, the femoral heads were found to have the lowest probability of complications as most of their volume was irradiated to lower equivalent doses compared to other tissues.

Quality of interstitial PDR-brachytherapy-implants of head-and-neck-cancers: predictive factors for local control and late toxicity?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Parameters and indices related to the implant geometry in use for describing the quality of volume implants in interstitial brachytherapy were developed on the basis of LDR-brachytherapy. The aim of our study was to evaluate their usefulness for predicting late toxicity and local control in the PDR-brachytherapy of head-and-neck-tumors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 2000 and October 2004, 210 patients were treated with PDR-brachytherapy which was administered either postoperatively or as definitive treatment. Brachytherapy was used as sole treatment in some cases while in others a combination with EBRT was used. For assessment of quality of implants we analyzed the following indices and parameters using the univariate chi2 test and multivariate logistic regression analysis: V85, V120 and V150 (volume enclosed by the surface of the 85%-, 120%- and 150%-isodose), UI (uniformity index), QI (quality index), HI (homogeneity index), VGR (volume gradient ratio), DNR (dose non-uniformity ratio), LD (low dose), HD (high dose), PD (peak dose) and the intersource spacing.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 24 months (4-50) the rate of - usually transient - soft tissue necrosis (STN) was 11%, osteoradionecrosis (ORN) was seen in 7.6% of cases and local relapse occurred in 7% of cases. Univariate analysis shows a significant influence on the development of soft tissue necrosis for V85, and on osteoradionecrosis for HD and PD. In the multivariate analysis a correlation between soft tissue necrosis and QI was found. For local control a correlation with QI, VGR and minimal tube distance was found using univariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Using interstitial PDR-brachytherapy in head-and-neck-tumors the probability of local control and of the development of soft tissue necrosis or osteoradionecrosis is dependent on dose and volume parameter like the volume of the reference isodose, the high and peak dose values, on the homogeneity of the dose distribution, quantified by the quality index or the volume gradient ratio as well on the minimal tube distance.

Commissioning and quality assurance of the Pinnacle(3) radiotherapy treatment planning system for external beam photons

The commissioning of a Pinnacle(3) treatment planning system is described. Four Elekta linear accelerators were commissioned for external beam photons. Measured data were used to derive parameter values for the Pinnacle(3) beam model by (1). fitting a Monte Carlo model of the accelerator head to measured data and then extracting the parameters for the Pinnacle(3) beam model, and by (2). using the auto-modelling facility within Pinnacle(3). Both of these methods yielded dose distributions in accord with published recommendations. A separate small-field beam model, customized for an in-house compact blocking system, was also created, which satisfied appropriate acceptance criteria for stereotactically guided conformal brain treatments. Inhomogeneous, oblique, asymmetrical and irregular fields were also assessed, with calculated and measured doses agreeing to within +/-3%. Dose-volume histogram calculation was found to be accurate to within +/-5% dose or volume for a grid size of 4 mm x 4 mm x 4 mm, with better accuracy being achieved for finer grids. Isocentric doses were compared between Pinnacle(3)'s collapsed cone convolution algorithm and the Bentley-Milan algorithm within the Target-2 treatment planning system. Dose differences were generally less than 3% in the dose prescribed, with larger values for breast plans, where the Pinnacle(3) algorithm calculated scatter more accurately. Pelvic and thoracic plans were also verified using an anthropomorphic phantom, with local dose differences between calculated and delivered dose of up to 8%, but mainly less than 3%, and with no systematic difference. Ionization chamber verifications using START and RT-01 trial procedures demonstrated differences between calculated and measured doses of less than 2%. Following satisfactory performance in the commissioning process, Pinnacle(3) has now been introduced into routine clinical use.