Conformity index: A review

Institut Curie, Orsay, France.
International Journal of Radiation OncologyBiologyPhysics (Impact Factor: 4.18). 03/2006; 64(2):333-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.09.028
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We present a critical analysis of the conformity indices described in the literature and an evaluation of their field of application. Three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, with or without intensity modulation, is based on medical imaging techniques, three-dimensional dosimetry software, compression accessories, and verification procedures. It consists of delineating target volumes and critical healthy tissues to select the best combination of beams. This approach allows better adaptation of the isodose to the tumor volume, while limiting irradiation of healthy tissues. Tools must be developed to evaluate the quality of proposed treatment plans. Dosimetry software provides the dose distribution in each CT section and dose-volume histograms without really indicating the degree of conformity. The conformity index is a complementary tool that attributes a score to a treatment plan or that can compare several treatment plans for the same patient. The future of conformal index in everyday practice therefore remains unclear.


Available from: Ge Noël, Jan 27, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The techniques and procedures for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) are reviewed in the context of the information process central to treatment planning and delivery of IMRT. A presentation is given of the evolution of the information based radiotherapy workflow and dose delivery techniques, as well as the volume and planning concepts for relating the dose information to image based patient representations. The formulation of the dose shaping process as an optimization problem is described. The different steps in the calculation flow for determination of machine parameters for dose delivery are described starting from the formulation of optimization objectives over dose calculation to optimization procedures. Finally, the main elements of the quality assurance procedure necessary for implementing IMRT clinically are reviewed.
    Physics in Medicine and Biology 08/2006; 51(13):R381-402. DOI:10.1088/0031-9155/51/13/R22 · 2.92 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine the optimum combination of treatment parameters between pitch, field width (FW) and modulation factor (MF) for extremity sarcomas in tomotherapy. Six patients previously treated for extremity sarcomas (3 arms and 3 legs) with tomotherapy were included in this study. 288 treatment plans were recalculated, corresponding to all combinations between 2 FW (2.5 and 5 cm), 4 MF (1.5, 2, 2.5 and 3) and 6 pitches (0.215, 0.287, 0.43 and 3 off-axis pitches). The treatment parameters (MF, FW or pitch) are modified between each plan, and the calculation is relaunched for 400 iterations, without modifying the optimisation constraints of the plan under which the patient has been treated. We suggest eliminating the 0.43 pitch and never combining a 0.215 pitch with an MF ≤ 2. We also do not recommend using an MF = 1.5 unless treatment time is an absolute priority over plan quality. We did not see any advantage in using Chen off-axis pitches, except for targets far from the axis (>15 cm) treated with a high pitch. A combination of MF = 2/FW = 5 cm/pitch = 0.287 gives plans of acceptable quality, combined with reduced treatment times. These conclusions are true only for extremity sarcomas treated in 2 Gy/fraction. We have shown that the choice of pitch/MF/FW combination is crucial for the treatment of extremity sarcomas in tomotherapy: some produce good dosimetric quality with a reduced irradiation time, while others may increase the time without improving the quality. Copyright © 2015 Associazione Italiana di Fisica Medica. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Physica Medica 05/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.05.005 · 1.85 Impact Factor
  • Source
    IOSR Journal of Applied Physics 11/2013; 5(6). DOI:10.9790/4861-0564954 · 1.35 Impact Factor