Nontumor integral dose variation in conventional radiotherapy treatment planning

Treatment planning involves selecting delivery parameters that distribute the dose to nontumor tissue in such a way as to minimize the risk of complications. This work studied the relationship between nontumor integral dose (NTID), the fractional energy deposited in nontumor tissue, and a variety of delivery parameters for three clinical cases: nasopharynx, pancreas, and prostate. Integral dose for an organ of uniform density is simply the product of the organ density, volume, and mean dose. For each case, conventional plans were generated with 2, 4, 8, 12 and 36 equally spaced beams. All plans were normalized to the same tumor mean dose (< 3%), which is equivalent to the same tumor integral dose. For the pancreas and prostate cases, the patients were assumed to be uniform density. For the nasopharynx case, bones and air cavities were outlined and each assigned a uniform non-unit density. With four or more beams and clinical margin values, the variation in NTID was < 1 % as a function of number of beams. With eight or more beams, the variation was <0.2%. Reducing the beam margin decreased the NTID because less normal tissue was irradiated. However, the effect of the number of beams on NTID was independent of margin size. Higher energy beams reduced the NTID, as expected, and the effect was independent of the number of beams. With four or more beams, variation in beam direction changed NTID by less than 1.5%. Changing beam weights changed NTID by < 2 % for plans with four to eight beams. For the body sites studied, the majority of energy was deposited in nontumor tissue, ranging from 72% in the nasopharynx case to 97% for the prostate case. The NTID decreased with increasing tumor size for similar anatomic sizes and increased with increasing size of anatomical region for similar tumor size. Finally, the effect of heterogeneity-corrected doses on the NTID was found to be < 3 % for the nasopharynx case. These data support the hypothesis that the NTID is approximately independent of beam orientation or relative weighting when many beams are used. Optimization, therefore, can only find the best distribution of dose; it cannot reduce the energy imparted. NTID may be useful in establishing an upper bound on the quality of plan that can be achieved by optimization. (C) 2003 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.