The choice of statistical methods for comparisons of dosimetric data in radiotherapy

Radiation Oncology

Jacques Balosso¹  Jean-Pierre Bresciani²  Emmanuel Perrin³  Jean-Yves Giraud¹  Abdulhamid Chaikh¹ 

[1] Department of Radiation Oncology and Medical physics, Grenoble University Hospital, Grenoble, France;LPNC, CNRS & Grenoble-Alpes University, Grenoble, France;University Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Villeurbanne, France

关键词: Radiotherapy;    Dose;    Statistical methods;   

Others  :  1151371
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-717X-9-205

 received in 2014-05-20, accepted in 2014-09-02,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Purpose

Novel irradiation techniques are continuously introduced in radiotherapy to optimize the accuracy, the security and the clinical outcome of treatments. These changes could raise the question of discontinuity in dosimetric presentation and the subsequent need for practice adjustments in case of significant modifications. This study proposes a comprehensive approach to compare different techniques and tests whether their respective dose calculation algorithms give rise to statistically significant differences in the treatment doses for the patient.

Methods

Statistical investigation principles are presented in the framework of a clinical example based on 62 fields of radiotherapy for lung cancer. The delivered doses in monitor units were calculated using three different dose calculation methods: the reference method accounts the dose without tissues density corrections using Pencil Beam Convolution (PBC) algorithm, whereas new methods calculate the dose with tissues density correction for 1D and 3D using Modified Batho (MB) method and Equivalent Tissue air ratio (ETAR) method, respectively. The normality of the data and the homogeneity of variance between groups were tested using Shapiro-Wilks and Levene test, respectively, then non-parametric statistical tests were performed. Specifically, the dose means estimated by the different calculation methods were compared using Friedman’s test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test. In addition, the correlation between the doses calculated by the three methods was assessed using Spearman’s rank and Kendall’s rank tests.

Results

The Friedman’s test showed a significant effect on the calculation method for the delivered dose of lung cancer patients (p <0.001). The density correction methods yielded to lower doses as compared to PBC by on average (−5 ± 4.4 SD) for MB and (−4.7 ± 5 SD) for ETAR. Post-hoc Wilcoxon signed-rank test of paired comparisons indicated that the delivered dose was significantly reduced using density-corrected methods as compared to the reference method. Spearman’s and Kendall’s rank tests indicated a positive correlation between the doses calculated with the different methods.

Conclusion

This paper illustrates and justifies the use of statistical tests and graphical representations for dosimetric comparisons in radiotherapy. The statistical analysis shows the significance of dose differences resulting from two or more techniques in radiotherapy.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Chaikh et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S, Purdy JA: A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys 1998, 25:656.
• [2]Bakai A, Alber M, Nusslin F: A revision of the gamma-evaluation concept for the comparison of dose distributions. Phys Med Biol 2003, 48:3543-3553.
• [3]Chaikh A, Giraud JY, Balosso J: A 3D quantitative evaluation for assessing the changes of treatment planning system and irradiation techniques in radiotherapy. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol 2014, 2(3):02033.
• [4]Chaikh A, Giraud JY, Balosso J: A method to quantify and assess the dosimetric and clinical impact resulting from the heterogeneity correction in radiotherapy for lung cancer. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol 2014, 2(1):020110.
• [5]ICRU Report No.50: Prescribing, Recording and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy. Bethesda, Maryland: International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements; 1993.
• [6]ICRU Report No.62: Prescribing, Recording and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy Supplement to ICRU Report 50. Bethesda, Maryland: International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements; 1999.
• [7]de Marques SJP: Applied Statistics Using SPSS, STATISTICA, MATLAB and R. 2nd edition. Berlin: Springer; 2007.
• [8]The R project for statistical computing http://www.r-project.org webcite
• [9]Bolton S, Bon C: Practical and Clinical Applications. Volume 135. 4th edition. Newyork Dekker: Marcel, Inc; 2004.
• [10]Suresh KP, Chandrashekara S: Sample size estimation and power analysis for clinical research studies. J Hum Reprod Sci 2012, 5(1):7-13.
• [11]Hoenig JM, Heisey DM: The abuse of power: the pervasive fallacy of power calculations for data analysis. Am Stat 2001, 55(1):1-6.
• [12]Power and Sample Size Calculation http://biostat.mc.vanderbilt.edu webcite
• [13]Dufour JM, Farhat A, Gardiol L, Khalaf L: Simulation-based finite sample normality tests in linear regressions. Economet J 1998, 1:154-173.
• [14]Razali NM, Wah YB: Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling tests. J Stat Mod Analyt 2011, 2(1):21-33.
• [15]Algina J, Olejnik S: Conducting power analyses for ANOVA and ANCOVA in between-subjects designs. Eval Health Prof 2003, 26(3):288-314.
• [16]Rodger RS, Roberts M: Comparison of Power for Multiple Comparison Procedures. J Methods Meas Soc Sci 2013, 4(1):20-47.
• [17]Task Group No. 65, the Radiation Therapy Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine: Tissue inhomogeneity corrections for MV photon beams. Madison, WI: Medical Physics Publishing 2004. https://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/rpt_85.pdf webcite
• [18]Ahnesjö A, Aspradakis MM: Dose calculations for external photon beams in radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol 1999, 44:99-155.
• [19]Loftus GR, Masson MEJ: Using confidence interval in within-subject designs. Psychon Bull Rev 1994, 1(4):476-490.