Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of the different uncertainty models in dose expected volume histogram computation

  • Scientific Note
  • Published:
Australasian Physics & Engineering Sciences in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Dose expected volume histograms are a useful alternative to dose volume histograms in order to take into account computation uncertainty when prescribing, planning and reporting external beam radiation therapy. Due to the type B nature of computation uncertainties, a rectangular probability distribution was assumed in its definition. In the present work, the changes of dose expected volume histograms when using other recommended point dose uncertainty models are investigated. Results show that the choice of probability distribution, among the ones recommended for uncertainty modelling, has a small effect on the result. Thus, the standard uncertainty of point dose computations is the main parameter affecting dose expected volume histograms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. ICRU Report No. 50.Prescribing, recording, reporting, photon beam therapy. Washington, DC. 1994.

  2. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. ICRU Report No. 62.Prescribing, Recording and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy (Supplement to ICRU Report 50). Washington, DC. 1999.

  3. Lefkopoulos, D., Ferreira, I., Isambert, A. et al.Présent et avenir de la radiothérapie guidée par l’image (IGRT) et ses applications posibles dans le traitement des cancers bronchides. Cancer Radiothérapie 11. 23–31. 2007.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cho, B.C.J., van Herk, M., Mijnheer, B.J., et al,The effect of set-up uncertainties, contour changes, and tissue inhomogeneities on target dose-volume histograms. Med. Phys., 29 (10), 2305–2318, 2002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Collaborative Working Group.Intensity-modulated radiotherapy: current status and issues of interest. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 51 880–914. 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ezzell, G.A., Galvin, J.M., Low, D. et al.Guidance document on delivery, treatment planning, and clinical implementation of IMRT: Report of the IMRT subcommittee of the AAPM radiation therapy committee. Med. Phys. Vol. 30, Issue 8. 2089–2115. 2003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Venselaar, J., Welleweerd, H., Mijnheer, B.Tolerances for the accuracy of photon beam dose calculations of treatment planning systems. Radiot. Oncol. 60. 191–201. 2001.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Venselaar, J., Welleweerd, H.Application of a test package in an intercomparison of the photon dose calculation performance of treatment planning systems used in a clinical setting. Radiot. Oncol. 60. 203–213. 2001.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Cutanda Henríquez, F, Vargas Castrillón, S.A novel method for the evaluation of uncertainty in dose volume histogram computation. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 70 (4). 1263-1271. 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  10. IAEA. Technical Reports Series no. 430.Commisioning and Quality Assurance of Computerized Planning Systems for Radiation Treatment of Cancer. International Atomic Energy Agency. Vienna. 2004.

  11. International Standards Organization.Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. Geneva. 1995.

  12. Andreo, P., Burns, D.T., Hohlfeld, K. et al.Absorbed dose determination in external beam radiotherapy: an international Code of Practice for dosimetry based on standards of absorbed dose to water. IAEA Technical Report Series No. 398. International Atomic Energy Agency. Vienna. 2000.

  13. Shaw, J.E. IPEMB Report 68.A guide to commissioning and quality control of treatment planning systems. Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine and Biology. York. 1994.

  14. Born, E., Fogliatta-Cozzi, A., Ionescu, F. et al.Quality Control of Treatment Planning Systems for Teletherapy. Swiss Society for Radiobiology and Medical Physics. Recommendations no. 7. 1997.

  15. Panitsa, E., Rosenwald, J-C., Kappas, C.Quality Control of Dose Volume Histogram Computation Characteristics of 3D Treatment Planning Systems. Phys. Med. Biol. 43 2807–2816. 1998.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fraass, B, Doppke, K., Hunt, M., et al,American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: Quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning. Med. Phys. 25 (10). 1773–1829. 1998.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mayles, W.P.M., Lake, R., McKenzie, A., et al.Physics aspects of quality control in radiotherapy. IPEM Report No.81. The Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, York, Great Britain, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mijnheer, B., Olszewska, A., Fiorino, C. et al.Quality Assurance of Treatment Planning Systems. Practical Examples for Non-IMRT Photon Beams. ESTRO Physics booklet no. 7. European Society for Therapeutic Radiation Oncology. 2004.

  19. Nederlandse Commissie voor Stralingsdosimetrie. Report 15.Quality assurance of 3-D treatment planning systems for external photon and electron beams. Practical guidelines for acceptance testing, commissioning and periodic quality control of radiation therapy treatment planning systems. NCS. 2006.

  20. Van Dyk, J., Barnett, R.B., Cygler, J.E. et al.Commissioning and quality assurance of treatment planning computers. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 26(2). 261–273. 1993.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Servicio de Medicina Nuclear, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Calle Doctor Esquerdo, 46, 28007, Madrid, Spain

    F. Cutanda Henríquez

  2. Science and Education Ministry, Madrid, Spain

    S. Vargas Castrillón

Authors
  1. F. Cutanda Henríquez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Vargas Castrillón
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Cutanda Henríquez.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Henríquez, F.C., Castrillón, S.V. The effect of the different uncertainty models in dose expected volume histogram computation. Australas. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. 31, 196–202 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03179344

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03179344

Key words

Search

Navigation