2017
DOI: 10.1063/1.4976462
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Correlation between heterogeneity index (HI) and gradient index (GI) for high dose stereotactic radiotherapy/radiosurgery (SRT/SRS)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
3
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
1
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Heterogeneity index (HI) describes PTV dose variation, and can be calculated with the simpler Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) calculation where <2 is ideal, or with a more strict calculation using D98 and D2 (this calculation reveals more heterogeneity; values will vary widely by plan although the ideal value is 0) 28 . Table 6 shows that all CI were reasonably close to unity (median CI = 0.81 and 1.10, based on two different equations, respectively 26,28 ), GI was similar to the Paddick study for stereotactic wherein GI values were 2.4 to 3.3 27 (median GI = 3.35 in the current study), all cases had acceptable RTOG HI (median HI = 1.12), and 7/8 cases had alternate HI values ≤15 suggesting some heterogeneity in the approved plans 29 . Values for CI, GI and HI were only evaluated retrospectively and were not used in plan approval.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 80%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Heterogeneity index (HI) describes PTV dose variation, and can be calculated with the simpler Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) calculation where <2 is ideal, or with a more strict calculation using D98 and D2 (this calculation reveals more heterogeneity; values will vary widely by plan although the ideal value is 0) 28 . Table 6 shows that all CI were reasonably close to unity (median CI = 0.81 and 1.10, based on two different equations, respectively 26,28 ), GI was similar to the Paddick study for stereotactic wherein GI values were 2.4 to 3.3 27 (median GI = 3.35 in the current study), all cases had acceptable RTOG HI (median HI = 1.12), and 7/8 cases had alternate HI values ≤15 suggesting some heterogeneity in the approved plans 29 . Values for CI, GI and HI were only evaluated retrospectively and were not used in plan approval.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 80%
“…CI does not account for whether the dose is in the same location at the target 26‐28 . Gradient index (GI) describes how quickly the dose drops outside the PTV, with smaller values representing steeper gradients 29 . Heterogeneity index (HI) describes PTV dose variation, and can be calculated with the simpler Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) calculation where <2 is ideal, or with a more strict calculation using D98 and D2 (this calculation reveals more heterogeneity; values will vary widely by plan although the ideal value is 0) 28 .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The conformity index describes how the volume of a stereotactic radiotherapy plan conforms to the size and shape of the planning target volume, with values <2 being recommended, and values closer to 1 being ideal . Gradient index describes how steep the dose gradient is outside of the planning target volume, with smaller values having steeper gradients . Heterogeneity index describes the dose heterogeneity existing within the planning target volume, and can be calculated with the simple Radiation Therapy Oncology Group calculation, or with a more complex calculation based on the D98 and D2 (available for three‐dimensional‐conformal/IMRT cases) .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other groups have reported reduction in GI with increasing HI. 11,12 GI as a function of the dose HI for all PTVs ≥0.8 cm 3 is shown in Fig. 2.…”
Section: Ma Et Al Published a Planning Study Comparing Plans For Gammamentioning
confidence: 99%