Assessment of dose‐volume histogram precision for five clinical systems. Issue 10 (27th August 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pepin, Mark D.; Penoncello, Gregory P.; Brom, Kevin M.; Gustafson, Jon M.; Long, Kenneth M.; Rong, Yi; Fong de los Santos, Luis E.; Shiraishi, Satomi
• Is Part Of: Medical physics. Volume 49:Issue 10(2022)
• Page Start: 6303
• Page End: 6318
• Publication Date: 2022-08-27
• Subjects: dose‐volume histogram -- DVH analysis -- treatment planning systems; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Medical physics; Geneeskunde; Natuurkunde; Toepassingen; Biophysics; Periodicals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/mp.15916
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0094-2405

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: To investigate the dependency of dose‐volume histogram (DVH) behavior and precision on underlying discretization using shapes and dose distributions with known analytical DVHs for five commercial DVH calculators. Methods: DVHs and summary metrics were extracted from all five systems using synthetic cone and cylinder objects for which the true volume and DVH curves were known. Trends in the curves and metrics were explored by varying the underlying voxelization of the CT image, structure set, and dose grid as well by varying the geometry of the structure and direction of a linear dose gradient. Using synthetic structures allowed for comparison with ground truth DVH curves to assess their accuracy while an algorithm was additionally developed to assess the precision of each system. The precision was calculated with a novel algorithm that treats any "stair step" behavior in a DVH curve as an uncertainty band and calculates the width, characterized as a percent difference, of the band for various DVH metrics. The underlying voxelization was additionally changed and DVHs were extracted for two clinical examples. The details of how each system calculated DVHs were also investigated and tendencies in the calculated curves, metrics, and precision were related to choices made in the calculation methodology. Results: Calculation methodology differences that had a noticeable impact on the DVH curves and summary metrics include supersampling beyond the input grids and interpretation of the superior and inferior ends of the structures. Among the systems studied, the median precision ranged from 0.902% to 3.22%, and interquartile ranges varied from 1.09% to 3.91%. Conclusions: Commercial dose‐evaluation solutions can calculate different DVH curves, structure volume measures, and dose statistics for the same input data due to differences in their calculation methodologies. This study highlights the importance of understanding and investigating the DVH calculation when considering a new clinical system and when using more than one system for data transfer.