{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.043078412391093904, 'fraction_numerical': 0.022749273959341725, 'mean_word_length': 4.973988439306359, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 3, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Impact of the radiotherapy technique on the correlation between dose–volume histograms of the bladder wall defined on MRI imaging and dose–volume/surface histograms in prostate cancer patients

The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between the ‘true’ absolute and relative dose–volume histograms (DVHs) of the bladder wall, dose–wall histogram (DWH) defined on MRI imaging and other surrogates of bladder dosimetry in prostate cancer patients, planned both with 3D-conformal and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques. For 17 prostate cancer patients, previously treated with radical intent, CT and MRI scans were acquired and matched. The contours of bladder walls were drawn by using MRI images. External bladder surfaces were then used to generate artificial bladder walls by performing automatic contractions of 5, 7 and 10 mm. For each patient a 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) and an IMRT treatment plan was generated with a prescription dose of 77.4 Gy (1.8 Gy/fr) and DVH of the whole bladder of the artificial walls (DVH-5/10) and dose–surface histograms (DSHs) were calculated and compared against the DWH in absolute and relative value, for both treatment planning techniques. A specific software (VODCA v. 4.4.0, MSS Inc.) was used for calculating the dose–volume/surface histogram. Correlation was quantified for selected dose–volume/surface parameters by the Spearman correlation coefficient. The agreement between %DWH and DVH5, DVH7 and DVH10 was found to be very good (maximum average deviations below 2%, SD < 5%): DVH5 showed the best agreement. The correlation was slightly better for absolute (R = 0.80–0.94) compared to relative (R = 0.66–0.92) histograms. The DSH was also found to be highly correlated with the DWH, although slightly higher deviations were generally found. The DVH was not a good surrogate of the DWH (R < 0.7 for most of parameters). When comparing the two treatment techniques, more pronounced differences between relative histograms were seen for IMRT with respect to 3DCRT (p < 0.0001).