Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Med Phys. 2021 Apr;48(4):1461-1468. doi: 10.1002/mp.14645. Epub 2021 Feb 17.
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).
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.
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 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].
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.
对于立体定向放射外科（SRS），需要准确评估小结构的剂量-体积指标。本研究的目的是比较五种市售 SRS DVH 分析工具（Eclipse、Elements、Raystation、MIM 和 Velocity）的 DVH 度量能力。
使用 MATLAB 创建的 DICOM RTdose 和 RTstructure 设置文件被导入并在每个工具中进行评估。每个结构集由 50 个随机放置的球体目标组成。使用解析模型在 1mm 网格上创建剂量分布，使得球体的剂量-体积指标是已知的。为 3、5、7、10、15 和 20mm 直径的球体创建结构集。报告的结构体积、V100%[cc]和 V50%[cc]，以及 RTOG 适形指数和 Paddick 梯度指数，与分析值进行了比较。
对于所有评估的目标尺寸，报告的结构体积的平均差异和范围分别为-TPS-A 至 TPS-E 的-4.73%[-33.2,0.2]、0.11%[-10.9,9.5]、-0.39%[-12.1,7.0]、-2.24%[-21.0,1.3]和 1.15%[-15.1,0.8]。V100%[cc]（V20Gy[cc]）的平均差异和范围分别为-TPS-A 至 TPS-E 的-0.4[-24.5,9.8]、-2.73[-23.6,1.1]、-3.01[-23.6,0.6]、-3.79[-27.3,1.3]和 0.26[-6.1,2.6]。对于 V50%[cc]（V10Gy[cc]），TPS-A 至 TPS-E 的平均差异和范围分别为-0.05[-0.8,0.4]、-0.18[-1.2,0.5]、-0.44[-1.4,0.3]、-0.26[-1.8,2.6]和 0.09[-1.4,2.7]。
本研究扩展了先前发表的文献，定量比较了常用于 SRS 计划评估的软件的 DVH 分析能力，并提供了可免费下载的、基于分析的一组地面真相 DICOM 剂量和结构文件，供放射治疗诊所使用。系统之间的差异突出了系统之间标准化和/或透明度的必要性，特别是在评估多机构临床试验的计划质量时。
