Radiological Physics and Technology

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 382–391 | Cite as

Dose prescription point in forward intensity-modulated radiotherapy of breast and head/neck cancers

  • Farzaneh AllaveisiEmail author
  • Nasrin Amini
  • Sohrab Sakineh Pour


In the forward intensity-modulated radiotherapy (FIMRT) technique of treatment planning, the isocenter cannot fulfill the requirements of the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) reference point. This study aimed to propose dose prescription points to be used in breast and head/neck cancer patients treated using the FIMRT technique. Two-hundred patients with head/neck (n = 100) and breast (n = 100) cancers were selected. Treatment plans involved using the FIMRT technique. The suggested reference points (SRPs) for dose prescription were placed at selected locations in the lateral neck site and the tangential site in breast and head/neck cancer patients, respectively. Next, doses at the SRPs (DSRPs) were compared to the planning treatment volume (PTV)-equivalent uniform dose (EUD) and mean dose in the PTV (Dmean) extracted from dose–volume histograms. The differences between DSRPs and Dmean for the PTVs were less than 2% in 78 cases and less than 1% in 28 cases. The DSRPs were comparable with the EUD in both types of PTVs; moreover, paired t test analyses indicated that the SRP doses and PTV EUD were statistically similar (p > 0.05). In 116 cases, the discrepancy between DSRP and EUD was less than 2% and less than 1% in 74 cases. The SRPs satisfy the ICRU requirement that the reference point dose should be clinically relevant and representative of the dose throughout the PTV. A consensus on the definition of the reference point is expected to lead to accurate inter-comparison between results from different treatment centers, facilitating the optimization of treatment procedures.


Prescription dose Forward intensity-modulated radiotherapy ICRU reference point Dmean Equivalent uniform dose Multi leaf collimator Dose–volume histogram 



This manuscript was supported by the Faculty of Medicine of Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences. We would like to acknowledge all the radiation therapy technicians of the Radiotherapy department of the Tohid Hospital where the data acquisition was performed for this study.


This study was funded by the Faculty of Medicine of Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences (Grant Number: 1395/131).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Standards of human rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed.

Standards of animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with animal performed.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Khan FM, Gibbons JP. Khan's the physics of radiation therapy. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (LWW); 2014.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Halperin EC, Perez CA. Perez and Brady’s principles and practice of radiation oncology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (LWW); 2013.  Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allaveisi F, Moghadam AN. Comparison between the four-field box and field-in-field techniques for conformal radiotherapy of the esophagus using dose-volume histograms and normal tissue complication probabilities. Jpn J Radiol. 2017;35(6):327–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mayo C, Lo Y, Fitzgerald TJ, Urie M. Forward-planned, multiple-segment, tangential fields with concomitant boost in the treatment of breast cancer. Med Dosim. 2005;29(4):265–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mihai A, Rakovitch E, Sixel K, Woo T, Cardoso M, Bell C, et al. Inverse vs. forward breast IMRT planning. Med Dosim. 2005;30(3):149–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Onal C, Sonmez A, Arslan G, Oymak E, Kotek A, Efe E, et al. Dosimetric comparison of the field-in-field technique and tangential wedged beams for breast irradiation. Jpn J Radiol. 2012;30(3):218–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sasaoka M, Futami T. Dosimetric evaluation of whole breast radiotherapy using field-in-field technique in early-stage breast cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2011;16(3):250–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kukolowicz PF, Mijnheer BJ. Comparison between dose values specified at the ICRU reference point and the mean dose to the planning target volume. Radiother Oncol. 1997;42(3):271–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dische S, Saunders M, Williams C, Hopkins A, Aird E. Precision in reporting the dose given in a course of radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 1993;29(3):287–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dutreix A. Prescription, precision and decision in treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1986;12:88–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Landberg T, Chavaudra J, Dobbs J, Gerard JP, Hanks G, Horiot JC, et al. Report 62. J Int Commun Radiat Units Measur. 1999;os32(1):NP–NP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brahme A. Dosimetric precision requirements in radiation therapy. Acta Radiol Oncol. 1984;23(5):379–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brahme A. Which parameters of the dose distribution are best related to the radiation response of tumours and normal tissues? (IAEA-TECDOC--734). International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); 1994.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yaparpalvi R, Hong L, Mah D, Shen J, Mutyala S, Spierer M, et al. ICRU reference dose in an era of intensity-modulated radiation therapy clinical trials: correlation with planning target volume mean dose and suitability for intensity-modulated radiation therapy dose prescription. Radiother Oncol. 2008;89(3):347–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aaltonen P, Brahme A, Lax I, Levernes S, Naslund I, Reitan J, et al. Specification of dose delivery in radiation therapy. Recommendation by the Nordic Association of Clinical Physics (NACP). Acta Oncol. 1998;36:1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chang DS, Lasley FD, Das IJ, Mendonca MS, Dynlacht JR. Basic radiotherapy physics and biology. New York: Springer; 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Das IJ, Cheng CW, Chopra KL, Mitra RK, Srivastava SP, Glatstein E. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy dose prescription, recording, and delivery: patterns of variability among institutions and treatment planning systems. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(5):300–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bratengeier K, Oechsner M, Gainey M, Flentje M. Remarks on reporting and recording consistent with the ICRU reference dose. Radiat Oncol. 2009;4(1):44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chaudhari SR, Reynolds M, Higgins PD. Effect of dose prescription and block margin on small field treatment planning. J Radiother Pract. 2011;12(1):8–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bufacchi A, Arcangeli G, delle Canne S, Malatesta T, Capparella R, Fragomeni R, et al. Comparison between the ideal reference dose level and the actual reference dose level from clinical 3D radiotherapy treatment plans. Radiother Oncol. 2009;92(1):68–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mavroidis P, Ferreira BC, Shi C, Lind BK, Papanikolaou N. Treatment plan comparison between helical tomotherapy and MLC-based IMRT using radiobiological measures. Phys Med Biol. 2007;52(13):3817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kestin LL, Sharpe MB, Frazier RC, Vicini FA, Yan D, Matter RC, et al. Intensity modulation to improve dose uniformity with tangential breast radiotherapy: initial clinical experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;48(5):1559–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sung SY, Lee HY, Tu PC, Lin CH, Yu PC, Lui LT, et al. In vivo dosimetry of skin surface for breast cancer radiotherapy using intensity-modulated radiation therapy technique and helical tomotherapy. Ther Radiol Oncol. 2017;1(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dong L, Antolak J, Salehpour M, Forster K, O’Neill L, Kendall R, et al. Patient-specific point dose measurement for IMRT monitor unit verification. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;56(3):867–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tanaka H, Hayashi S, Kajiura Y, Kitahara M, Matsuyama K, Kanematsu M, et al. Evaluation of the field-in-field technique with lung blocks for breast tangential radiotherapy. Nagoya J Med Sci. 2015;77(3):339.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Niemierko A. Reporting and analyzing dose distributions: a concept of equivalent uniform dose. Med Phys. 1997;24(1):103–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Emami B, Lyman J, Brown A, Cola L, Goitein M, Munzenrider J, et al. Tolerance of normal tissue to therapeutic irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991;21(1):109–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gay HA, Niemierko A. A free program for calculating EUD-based NTCP and TCP in external beam radiotherapy. Phys Med. 2007;23(3):115–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Khan FM, Gibbons JP, Sperduto PW. Khan’s treatment planning in radiation oncology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (LWW); 2016.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Podgorsak EB. Review of radiation oncology physics: a handbook for teachers and students. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency Educational reports series; 2003.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Galvin JM, Xiao Y, Curran WJ Jr. Re. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy dose prescription, recording, and delivery: patterns of variability among institutions and treatment planning systems. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(17):1264 (author reply 5–7).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Levin-Plotnik D, Hamilton R. Optimization of tumour control probability for heterogeneous tumours in fractionated radiotherapy treatment protocols. Phys Med Biol. 2004;49(3):407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Radiological Technology and Japan Society of Medical Physics 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of MedicineKurdistan University of Medical SciencesSanandajIran
  2. 2.Department of Radiation TherapyTohid Hospital, Kurdistan University of Medical SciencesSanandajIran

Personalised recommendations