Skip to main content
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
1. S. Webb, “The physical basis of IMRT and inverse planning,” Br. J. Radiol. 76, 678689 (2003).
2. Q. Wu and R. Mohan, “Algorithms and functionality of an intensity modulated radiotherapy optimization system,” Med. Phys. 27, 701711 (2000).
3. T. R. Mackie, T. W. Holmes, P. J. Reckwerdt, and J. Yang, “Tomotherapy: Optimized planning and delivery of radiation therapy,” Int. J. Imaging Syst. Technol. 6, 4355 (1995).
4. X. Zhang, X. Li, E. M. Quan, X. Pan, and Y. Li, “A methodology for automatic intensity-modulated radiation treatment planning for lung cancer,” Phys. Med. Biol. 56, 38733893 (2011).
5. B. Wu, F. Ricchetti, G. Sanguineti, M. Kazhdan, P. Simari, M. Chuang, R. Taylor, R. Jacques, and T. McNutt, “Patient geometry-driven information retrieval for IMRT treatment plan quality control,” Med. Phys. 36, 54975505 (2009).
6. B. Mathayomchan, Multiobjective Approach to Morphological Based Radiation Treatment Planning (PhD Thesis), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, 2006.
7. M. A. Hunt, A. Jackson, A. Narayana, and N. Lee, “Geometric factors influencing dosimetric sparing of the parotid glands using IMRT,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 66, 296304 (2006).
8. N. Reddy, D. Nori, H. Chang, C. S. Lange, and A. Ravi, “Prostate and seminal vesicle volume based consideration of prostate cancer patients for treatment with 3D-conformal or intensity-modulated radiation therapy,” Med. Phys. 37, 37913801 (2010).
9. K. L. Moore, R. S. Brame, D. A. Low, and S. Mutic, “Experience-based quality control of clinical intensity-modulated radiotherapy planning,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 81, 545551 (2011).
10. X. Zhu, Y. Ge, T. Li, D. Thongphiew, F. F. Yin, and Q. J. Wu, “A planning quality evaluation tool for prostate adaptive IMRT based on machine learning,” Med. Phys. 38, 719726 (2011).
11. B. Wu, F. Ricchetti, G. Sanguineti, M. Kazhdan, P. Simari, R. Jacques, R. Taylor, and T. McNutt, “Data-driven approach to generating achievable dose-volume histogram objectives in intensity-modulated radiotherapy planning,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 79, 12411247 (2011).
12. L. Yuan, Y. Ge, W. R. Lee, F. F. Yin, J. P. Kirkpatrick, and Q. J. Wu, “Quantitative analysis of the factors which affect the interpatient organ-at-risk dose sparing variation in IMRT plans,” Med. Phys. 39, 68686878 (2012).
13. L. M. Appenzoller, J. M. Michalski, W. L. Thorstad, S. Mutic, and K. L. Moore, “Predicting dose-volume histograms for organs-at-risk in IMRT planning,” Med. Phys. 39, 74467461 (2012).
14. T. Bortfeld and S. Webb, “Single-Arc IMRT?,” Phys. Med. Biol. 54, N9N20 (2009).
15. H. T. Chung, B. Lee, E. Park, J. J. Lu, and P. Xia, “Can all centers plan intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) effectively? An external audit of dosimetric comparisons between three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and IMRT for adjuvant chemoradiation for gastric cancer,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 71, 11671174 (2008).
16. I. J. Das, C. W. Cheng, K. L. Chopra, R. K. Mitra, S. P. Srivastava, and E. Glatstein, “Intensity-modulated radiation therapy dose prescription, recording, and delivery: patterns of variability among institutions and treatment planning systems,” J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 100, 300307 (2008).
17. B. E. Nelms, W. A. Tome, G. Robinson, and J. Wheeler, “Variations in the contouring of organs at risk: Test case from a patient with oropharyngeal cancer,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 82, 368378 (2012).
18. J. O. Deasy, V. Moiseenko, L. Marks, K. S. C. Chao, J. Nam, and A. Eisbruch, “Radiotherapy dose–volume effects on salivary gland function,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 76, S58S63 (2010).
19. M. Sohn, M. Alber, and D. Yan, “Principal component analysis-based pattern analysis of dose-volume histograms and influence on rectal toxicity,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 69, 230239 (2007).
20. C. Fiorino, I. Dell’Oca, A. Pierelli, S. Broggi, E. De Martin, N. Di Muzio, B. Longobardi, F. Fazio, and R. Calandrino, “Significant improvement in normal tissue sparing and target coverage for head and neck cancer by means of helical tomotherapy,” Radiother. Oncol. 78, 276282 (2006).
21. P. Mavroidis, C. Shi, G. A. Plataniotis, M. G. Delichas, B. C. Ferreira, S. Rodriguez, B. K. Lind, and N. Papanikolaou, “Comparison of the helical tomotherapy against the multileaf collimator-based intensity-modulated radiotherapy and 3D conformal radiation modalities in lung cancer radiotherapy,” Br. J. Radiol. 84, 161172 (2011).
22. J. Pardo-Montero and J. D. Fenwick, “Tomotherapy-like versus VMAT-like treatments: A multicriteria comparison for a prostate geometry,” Med. Phys. 39, 74187429 (2012).
23. R. Taylor, K. Opfermann, B. D. Jones, L. E. Terwilliger, D. G. McDonald, M. S. Ashenafi, E. Garrett-Meyer, and D. T. Marshall, “Comparison of radiation treatment delivery for pancreatic cancer: Linac intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus helical tomotherapy,” J. Med. Imaging Radiat. Oncol. 56, 332337 (2012).

Data & Media loading...


Article metrics loading...



To build a statistical model to quantitatively correlate the anatomic features of structures and the corresponding dose-volume histogram (DVH) of head and neck (HN) Tomotherapy (Tomo) plans. To study if the model built upon one intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) technique (such as conventional Linac) can be used to predict anticipated organs-at-risk (OAR) DVH of patients treated with a different IMRT technique (such as Tomo). To study if the model built upon the clinical experience of one institution can be used to aid IMRT planning for another institution.

Forty-four Tomotherapy intensity modulate radiotherapy plans of HN cases (Tomo-IMRT) from Institution A were included in the study. A different patient group of 53 HN fixed gantry IMRT (FG-IMRT) plans was selected from Institution B. The analyzed OARs included the parotid, larynx, spinal cord, brainstem, and submandibular gland. Two major groups of anatomical features were considered: the volumetric information and the spatial information. The volume information includes the volume of target, OAR, and overlapped volume between target and OAR. The spatial information of OARs relative to PTVs was represented by the distance-to-target histogram (DTH). Important anatomical and dosimetric features were extracted from DTH and DVH by principal component analysis. Two regression models, one for Tomotherapy plan and one for IMRT plan, were built independently. The accuracy of intratreatment-modality model prediction was validated by a leave one out cross-validation method. The intertechnique and interinstitution validations were performed by using the FG-IMRT model to predict the OAR dosimetry of Tomo-IMRT plans. The dosimetry of OARs, under the same and different institutional preferences, was analyzed to examine the correlation between the model prediction and planning protocol.

Significant patient anatomical factors contributing to OAR dose sparing in HN Tomotherapy plans have been analyzed and identified. For all the OARs, the discrepancies of dose indices between the model predicted values and the actual plan values were within 2.1%. Similar results were obtained from the modeling of FG-IMRT plans. The parotid gland was spared in a comparable fashion during the treatment planning of two institutions. The model based on FG-IMRT plans was found to predict the median dose of the parotid of Tomotherapy plans quite well, with a mean error of 2.6%. Predictions from the FG-IMRT model suggested the median dose of the larynx, median dose of the brainstem and D2 of the brainstem could be reduced by 10.5%, 12.8%, and 20.4%, respectively, in the Tomo-IMRT plans. This was found to be correlated to the institutional differences in OAR constraint settings. Re-planning of six Tomotherapy patients confirmed the potential of optimization improvement predicted by the FG-IMRT model was correct.

The authors established a mathematical model to correlate the anatomical features and dosimetric indexes of OARs of HN patients in Tomotherapy plans. The model can be used for the setup of patient-specific OAR dose sparing goals and quality control of planning results.

The institutional clinical experience was incorporated into the model which allows the model from one institution to generate a reference plan for another institution, or another IMRT technique.


Full text loading...


Access Key

  • FFree Content
  • OAOpen Access Content
  • SSubscribed Content
  • TFree Trial Content
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd