4.3 Article

Geometric dose prediction model for hemithoracic intensity-modulated radiation therapy in mesothelioma patients with two intact lungs

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS
卷 17, 期 3, 页码 371-379

出版社

MULTIMED INC
DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v17i3.6199

关键词

malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM); intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT); dose prediction model

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P30 CA008748] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The presence of two intact lungs makes it challenging to reach a tumoricidal dose with hemithoracic pleural intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) who underwent pleurectomy/decortications or have unresectable disease. We developed an anatomy-based model to predict attainable prescription dose before starting optimization. Fifty-six clinically delivered IMRT plans were analyzed regarding correlation of prescription dose and individual and total lung volumes, planning target volume (PTV), ipsilateral normal lung volume and ratios: contralateral/ipsilateral lung (CIVR); contralateral lung/PTV (CPVR); ipsilateral lung/PTV (IPVR); ipsilateral normal lung/total lung (INTLVR); ipsilateral normal lung/PTV (INLPVR). Spearman's rank correlation and Fisher's exact test were used. Correlation between mean ipsilateral lung dose (MILD) and these volume ratios and between prescription dose and single lung mean doses were studied. The prediction models were validated in 23 subsequent MPM patients. CIVR showed the strongest correlation with dose (R = 0.603, p < 0.001) and accurately predicted prescription dose in the validation cases. INLPVR and MILD as well as MILD and prescription dose were significantly correlated (R = -0.784, p < 0.001 and R = 0.554, p < 0.001, respectively) in the training and validation cases. Parameters obtainable directly from planning scan anatomy predict achievable prescription doses for hemithoracic IMRT treatment of MPM patients with two intact lungs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据