Premium
SU‐G‐BRC‐08: Evaluation of Dose Mass Histogram as a More Representative Dose Description Method Than Dose Volume Histogram in Lung Cancer Patients
Author(s) -
Liu J,
Eldib A,
Lin M,
Li J,
Mora G,
Ma C
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4956898
Subject(s) - histogram , dose volume histogram , voxel , nuclear medicine , lung cancer , radiation treatment planning , dosimetry , mathematics , lung , lung volumes , radiation therapy , medicine , radiology , computer science , pathology , artificial intelligence , image (mathematics)
Purpose: Dose‐volume‐histogram (DVH) is widely used for plan evaluation in radiation treatment. The concept of dose‐mass‐histogram (DMH) is expected to provide a more representative description as it accounts for heterogeneity in tissue density. This study is intended to assess the difference between DVH and DMH for evaluating treatment planning quality. Methods: 12 lung cancer treatment plans were exported from the treatment planning system. DVHs for the planning target volume (PTV), the normal lung and other structures of interest were calculated. DMHs were calculated in a similar way as DVHs expect that the voxel density converted from the CT number was used in tallying the dose histogram bins. The equivalent uniform dose (EUD) was calculated based on voxel volume and mass, respectively. The normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) in relation to the EUD was calculated for the normal lung to provide quantitative comparison of DVHs and DMHs for evaluating the radiobiological effect. Results: Large differences were observed between DVHs and DMHs for lungs and PTVs. For PTVs with dense tumor cores, DMHs are higher than DVHs due to larger mass weighing in the high dose conformal core regions. For the normal lungs, DMHs can either be higher or lower than DVHs depending on the target location within the lung. When the target is close to the lower lung, DMHs show higher values than DVHs because the lower lung has higher density than the central portion or the upper lung. DMHs are lower than DVHs for targets in the upper lung. The calculated NTCPs showed a large range of difference between DVHs and DMHs. Conclusion: The heterogeneity of lung can be well considered using DMH for evaluating target coverage and normal lung pneumonitis. Further studies are warranted to quantify the benefits of DMH over DVH for plan quality evaluation.