Impact of data transfer between treatment planning systems on dosimetric parameters

•Median percentage variation in PTV was 10.8% during dataset transfer between TPSs.•Differences in PTV coverage after dataset transfer had a mean value of −1.4 %.•After dataset transfer median percentage OARS volume variations is about 10 %.•Percentage variations in dose constraints for OARs is abou...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Physica medica 2024-05, Vol.121, p.103369-103369, Article 103369
Hauptverfasser: Meffe, Guenda, Votta, Claudio, Turco, Gabriele, Chillè, Elena, Nardini, Matteo, Romano, Angela, Chiloiro, Giuditta, Panza, Giulia, Galetto, Matteo, Capotosti, Amedeo, Moretti, Roberto, Gambacorta, Maria Antonietta, Boldrini, Luca, Indovina, Luca, Placidi, Lorenzo
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:•Median percentage variation in PTV was 10.8% during dataset transfer between TPSs.•Differences in PTV coverage after dataset transfer had a mean value of −1.4 %.•After dataset transfer median percentage OARS volume variations is about 10 %.•Percentage variations in dose constraints for OARs is about 50 %. In radiotherapy it is often necessary to transfer a patient’s DICOM (Digital Imaging and COmmunications in Medicine) dataset from one system to another for re-treatment, plan-summation or registration purposes. The aim of the study is to evaluate effects of dataset transfer between treatment planning systems. Twenty-five patients treated in a 0.35T MR-Linac (MRidian, ViewRay) for locally-advanced pancreatic cancer were enrolled. For each patient, a nominal dose distribution was optimized on the planning MRI. Each plan was daily re-optimized if needed to match the anatomy and exported from MRIdian-TPS (ViewRay Inc.) to Eclipse-TPS (Siemens-Varian). A comparison between the two TPSs was performed considering the PTV and OARs volumes (cc), as well as dose coverages and clinical constraints. From the twenty-five enrolled patients, 139 plans were included in the data comparison. The median values of percentage PTV volume variation are 10.8 % for each fraction, while percentage differences of PTV coverage have a mean value of −1.4 %. The median values of the percentage OARs volume variation are 16.0 %, 7.0 %, 10.4 % and 8.5 % for duodenum, stomach, small and large bowel, respectively. The percentage variations of the dose constraints are 41.0 %, 52.7 % and 49.8 % for duodenum, stomach and small bowel, respectively. This study has demonstrated a non-negligible variation in size and dosimetric parameters when datasets are transferred between TPSs. Such variations should be clinically considered. Investigations are focused on DICOM structure algorithm employed by the TPSs during the transfer to understand the cause of such variations.
ISSN:1120-1797
1724-191X
DOI:10.1016/j.ejmp.2024.103369