Minireviews
Copyright ©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
World J Radiol. Nov 28, 2014; 6(11): 874-880
Published online Nov 28, 2014. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v6.i11.874
Table 1 Calculated percent mean tumor control probability values (ranges in parentheses) for all algorithms as a function of planning target volume volume
PTV bins (cm3)Mean PTV volume(range, cm3)nEPL-1DEPL-3DAAACCCAcurosMC
4 ≤ v < 107.8 (4.8-9.9)15100.0 (100-100)99.9 (99.6-100)93.1 (76.3-99.8)91.3 (63.0-99.9)91.8 (60.8-99.8)90.5 (51.1-99.9)
10 ≤ v < 2015.0 (10.4-19.8)27100.0 (99.8-100)99.9 (99.5-100)91.3 (61.7-100)91.3 (50.4-100)91.4 (65.4-99.9)91.1 (53.2-100)
20 ≤ v < 3024.3 (20.4-29.6)2998.5 (99.8-100)98.9 (77.6-100)92.7 (74.9-99.9)90.5 (46.4-99.9)90.9 (65.1-99.9)91.1 (48.4-99.9)
30 ≤ v < 4034.9 (30.2-39.8)1899.8 (97.4-100)99.6 (98.2-100)92.0 (63.4-99.9)92.1 (69.7-99.9)90.9 (61.6-99.8)92.4 (56.3-99.9)
40 ≤ v < 6047.3 (40.2-58.4)1799.5 (93.1-100)99.1 (95.6-100)92.6 (78.6-99.9)91.4 (64.4-99.9)93.6 (77.6-99.9)92.3 (63.6-99.9)
60 ≤ v < 10078.0 (60.4-95.9)1699.5 (95.6-100)99.0 (95.8-100)92.7 (70.7-99.8)92.8 (66.2-99.9)93.4 (70.4-99.8)94.7 (74.6-99.9)
V ≥ 100162.4 (100.5-360.2)1199.2 (96.1-99.9)98.7 (95.0-100)96.3 (89.9-100)95.6 (91.6-99.8)95.3 (83.0-99.9)97.1 (88.8-99.9)
Table 2 Relative differences calculated as (without-with)/with density corrections using each algorithm
Eclipse AAAOTP CCPinnacle CCXiO SupOTP PBXiO FFT
Combined lungs
NTCPBurman-0.29-0.2-0.22-0.25-0.36-0.45
NTCPSeppenwoolde-0.19-0.13-0.12-0.15-0.23-0.3
Mean dose-0.08-0.05-0.05-0.06-0.09-0.13
V20-0.06-0.06-0.04-0.03-0.05-0.07
Heart
NTCP-0.19-0.15-0.15-0.13-0.17-0.21
Mean dose-0.06-0.05-0.05-0.05-0.06-0.09
V50-0.11-0.1-0.1-0.08-0.08-0.13
PTV
Mean dose-0.06-0.05-0.05-0.05-0.13-0.1
D01-0.05-0.05-0.04-0.04-0.1-0.11
D99-0.07-0.04-0.05-0.05-0.14-0.09
GTV
Mean dose-0.07-0.06-0.06-0.06-0.08-0.1
D01-0.07-0.07-0.06-0.06-0.09-0.11
D99-0.07-0.06-0.06-0.06-0.07-0.1
Table 3 Clinical impact of dose calculation algorithms
Ref.Tumor site/techniqueAlgorithms studied Results/conclusion
Nielsen et al[34], 2011NSCLCEclipse AAA OTP CC Pinnacle CC XiO Sup OTP PB XiO FFTDifferences in dose to target predicted by the different algorithms are of a magnitude. Calculated NTCP values for pneumonitis are more sensitive to the choice of algorithm than mean lung dose and V20
Chandrasekaran et al[38], 2011Lung/3DCRT,SBRTPBC, Eclipse AAA, Pinnacle CCC, Masterplan PBC and CCCPBC yielded higher TCP in comparison with other algorithms. For small tumor, TCP was overestimated by 4%-13% by PBC; for large tumor, there was an increase of up to 6%-22%
Liu et al[39], 2013Lung/SABREPL, MCEPL overestimates dose by amounts that substantially decrease TCP in a large proportion. Compared with MC, prescribing based on EPL translated to a median TCP decrement of 4.3% (range, 1.2%-37%) and a > 5% decrement in 46% of tumors
Bufacchi et al[33], 2013Prostate, HN, Lung, Breast /3DCRTPBC, AAANTCP calculated with AAA was lower than the NTCP calculated with PBC, except for the breast treatments
Chetty et al[30], 2013NSCLC/SABREPL-1D, EPL-3D, AAA, CCC, Acuros, MCAverage TCP decrements (5%-10%, ranging up to approximately 50%) were observed with model-based algorithms relative to the EPL-based methods