PLoS ONE (Jan 2020)

Prediction of radiation pneumonitis using dose-volume histogram parameters with high attenuation in two types of cancer: A retrospective study.

  • Yasuki Uchida,
  • Takuya Tsugawa,
  • Sachiko Tanaka-Mizuno,
  • Kazuo Noma,
  • Ken Aoki,
  • Kentaro Fukunaga,
  • Hiroaki Nakagawa,
  • Daisuke Kinose,
  • Masafumi Yamaguchi,
  • Makoto Osawa,
  • Taishi Nagao,
  • Emiko Ogawa,
  • Yasutaka Nakano

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244143
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 15, no. 12
p. e0244143

Abstract

Read online

The constraint values of dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters for radiation pneumonitis (RP) prediction have not been uniform in previous studies. We compared the differences between conventional DVH parameters and DVH parameters with high attenuation volume (HAV) in CT imaging in both esophageal cancer and lung cancer patients to determine the most suitable DVH parameters in predicting RP onset. Seventy-seven and 72 patients who underwent radiation therapy for lung cancer and esophageal cancer, respectively, were retrospectively assessed. RP was valued according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. We quantified HAV with quantitative computed tomography analysis. We compared conventional DVH parameters and DVH parameters with HAV in both groups of patients. Then, the thresholds of DVH parameters that predicted symptomatic RP and the differences in threshold of DVH parameters between lung cancer and esophageal cancer patient groups were compared. The predictive performance of DVH parameters for symptomatic RP was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Mean lung dose, HAV30% (the proportion of the lung with HAV receiving ≥30 Gy), and HAV20% were the top three parameters in lung cancer, while HAV10%, HAV5%, and V10 (the percentage of lung volume receiving 10 Gy or more) were the top three in esophageal cancer. By comparing the differences in the threshold for parameters predicting RP between the two cancers, we saw that HAV30% retained the same value in both cancers. DVH parameters with HAV showed narrow differences in the threshold between the two cancer patient groups compared to conventional DVH parameters. DVH parameters with HAV may have higher commonality than conventional DVH parameters in both patient groups tested.