Premium
Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) calculations as a means to compare proton and photon plans and evaluation of clinical appropriateness of calculated values
Author(s) -
Fuss Martin,
Poljanc Karin,
Miller Daniel W.,
Archambeau John O.,
Slater James M.,
Slater Jerry D.,
Hug Eugen B.
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
international journal of cancer
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.475
H-Index - 234
eISSN - 1097-0215
pISSN - 0020-7136
DOI - 10.1002/1097-0215(20001220)90:6<351::aid-ijc7>3.0.co;2-j
Subject(s) - complication , radiation therapy , nuclear medicine , medicine , dosimetry , dose volume histogram , proton therapy , radiology , radiation treatment planning , surgery
Calculation of normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) for proton radiation therapy (PRT) and two photon radiation therapy techniques for cranial irradiation of childhood optic nerve gliomas was made. Evaluation of usefulness of calculated NTCP values for comparison of treatment plans and clinical appropriateness of computed data was used. Three radiation plans were calculated on datasets of children treated previously for optic nerve gliomas with PRT. Dose–volume histograms (DVH) were computed and used to calculate NTCP. Evaluated complication endpoints were necrosis, blindness, and cognitive impairment. Calculated NTCP depended strongly on tumor volume and the normal tissue volume exposed to high radiation doses. Dose conformity and steeper dose‐gradient correlated with reduced NTCP. Regarding the chosen complication endpoints, PRT was superior to 3D photons; conventional photons were calculated to have the highest NTCPs. Differences might reach clinical significance for cognitive impairment, a frequently observed toxicity. Calculated NTCP values were highly dependent on implemented clinical data. Calculation of NTCP can be used for ranking of treatment plans and modalities. Highly dependent on implemented clinical data, the calculated percentage of NTCP might be more of a figure of merit than a real predictive value and requires comparison to clinical experience. Int. J. Cancer (Radiat. Oncol. Invest.) 90, 351–358 (2000). © 2000 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.