{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,26]],"date-time":"2026-10-26T16:42:35Z","timestamp":1793032955487,"version":"4.5.0"},"reference-count":25,"publisher":"Wiley","issue":"5","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,24]],"date-time":"2026-05-24T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1779580800000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":23,"URL":"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,1]],"date-time":"2026-05-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1777593600000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/doi.wiley.com\/10.1002\/tdm_license_1.1"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["J Applied Clin Med Phys"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,5]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Background<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Conformity evaluation is essential for assessing radiotherapy plan quality, yet widely used indices such as the ICRU and Paddick Conformity Index do not distinguish between target underdosage and peripheral overdose. As clinical protocols differ in their target coverage definitions ICRU 50\/62, ICRU 83, and RTOG\/NRG direct comparisons of plan conformity across protocols remain challenging. Recently proposed metrics the Universal Conformity Index (CI) and Unconformity Indices (UCIu for underdose and UCIo for overdose) provide a decomposed, interpretable assessment of dose target relationships. However, protocol\u2010specific optimal ranges for these indices and their clinical achievability have not been systematically established for pelvic radiotherapy.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Purpose<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>To determine protocol\u2010specific optimal (p10\u2013p90) ranges for CI, UCIu, and UCIo across pelvic sites under ICRU 50\/62, ICRU 83, and RTOG\/NRG frameworks, and to verify whether these optimal values are clinically achievable using modern IMRT plans.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      This study analyzed 40 anonymized pelvic cancer cases (20 prostate, 10 rectum, 10 endometrium). All cases were replanned under standardized dose prescriptions following ICRU 50\/62, ICRU 83, and RTOG\/NRG protocols. Two geometric configurations were evaluated: Target 1 (strict) and Target 2 (conservative). Stage 1: Using protocol\u2010specific V95(%) definitions, theoretical optimal CI, UCIu, and UCIo bands (p10\u2013p90) were calculated separately for each site and protocol under Target 1 and Target 2. Stage 2: All 40 cases were combined into a pooled pelvic dataset to derive region\u2010wide optimal ranges and assess generalizability across sites. Stage 3: Clinical IMRT plans satisfying ICRU, RTOG, and QUANTEC constraints were generated for all patients, and clinical CI, UCIu, and UCIo values were compared against theoretical optimal bands. Statistical analysis included percentile bands, 95% Confidence Interval, p value, and effect size (\n                      <jats:italic>\u03b7<\/jats:italic>\n                      <jats:sup>2<\/jats:sup>\n                      ).\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      Across all pelvic sites, CI values decreased progressively from ICRU 50\/62 to ICRU 83 and RTOG\/NRG (\n                      <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u00a0&lt;\u00a00.001), while UCIu and UCIo increased systematically, reflecting protocol\u2010driven differences in coverage tolerance. Margin expansion from Target 1 to Target 2 further reduced CI and increased UCIo. Pooled pelvic optimal ranges showed tight reproducibility with narrow 95% confidence intervals (\u00b1\u00a00.006\u20130.016). Strong protocol effects were observed for CI (\n                      <jats:italic>\u03b7<\/jats:italic>\n                      <jats:sup>2<\/jats:sup>\n                      \u00a0=\u00a00.259\u20130.519), UCIu (\n                      <jats:italic>\u03b7<\/jats:italic>\n                      <jats:sup>2<\/jats:sup>\n                      \u00a0=\u00a00.997), and UCIo (\n                      <jats:italic>\u03b7<\/jats:italic>\n                      <jats:sup>2<\/jats:sup>\n                      up to 0.182). Clinically generated IMRT plans demonstrated high\u2010quality target coverage (V95% \u2265 98.9%) and acceptable OAR doses. Clinical CI, UCIu, and UCIo values closely matched the optimal p10\u2013p90 bands. Prostate and rectum plans aligned fully with all protocol\u2010specific optimal ranges, while endometrium plans matched RTOG\/NRG and Target\u20102 thresholds, with minor deviations under strict Target\u20101 geometry.\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>This study provides the protocol\u2010specific and clinically achievable optimal ranges for CI, UCIu, and UCIo for pelvic radiotherapy across ICRU 50\/62, ICRU 83, and RTOG\/NRG frameworks. The combined theoretical, pooled, and clinical validation approach demonstrates that these decomposed conformity indices are robust, reproducible, and directly applicable to routine IMRT plan evaluation. The resulting optimal bands offer standardized benchmarks for assessing dose conformity and dose spill, improving cross\u2010protocol comparability and supporting future development of quantitative conformity\u2010based guidelines in radiotherapy.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1002\/acm2.70635","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,25]],"date-time":"2026-05-25T03:34:47Z","timestamp":1779680087000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Determining optimal conformity index values in pelvic region radiotherapy planning under ICRU 50\/62, ICRU 83, and RTOG\/NRG guidelines"],"prefix":"10.1002","volume":"27","author":[{"given":"Levent","family":"Gonultas","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Vocational School of Health Services Ankara Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m Beyaz\u0131t University  Ankara T\u00fcrkiye"},{"name":"Universal Radiotherapy R&amp;D Co. Ltd.  Ankara T\u00fcrkiye"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"311","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,24]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_2_11_2_1","unstructured":"ICRU.Prescribing Recording and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy: Supplement toICRU Report 50. ICRU Report 62.Bethesda MD;1999."},{"key":"e_1_2_11_3_1","unstructured":"ICRU.Prescribing Recording and Reporting Intensity\u2010Modulated Photon\u2010Beam Therapy (IMRT). ICRU Report 83.Bethesda MD;2010."},{"key":"e_1_2_11_4_1","unstructured":"Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG).A Phase III Randomized Trial of High\u2010Dose 3D\u2010CRT\/IMRT vs Standard\u2010Dose 3D\u2010CRT for Localized Prostate Cancer. RTOG 0126;2002."},{"key":"e_1_2_11_5_1","unstructured":"RTOG.A Randomized Phase III Trial of Hypofractionated 3D\u2010CRT\/IMRT vs Conventional Fractionation 3D\u2010CRT\/IMRT. RTOG 0415;2004."},{"key":"e_1_2_11_6_1","unstructured":"RTOG.Concurrent Accelerated Radiation and Cisplatin Chemotherapy for Head and Neck Cancer. RTOG 0522;2006."},{"key":"e_1_2_11_7_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/0360\u20103016(93)90548\u2010A"},{"key":"e_1_2_11_8_1","unstructured":"RTOG.RTOG 0813 \/0915: Dose\u2010spillage and plan\u2010deviation criteria.2010."},{"key":"e_1_2_11_9_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijrobp.2005.09.028"},{"key":"e_1_2_11_10_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3171\/jns.2000.93.supplement_3.0219"},{"issue":"2","key":"e_1_2_11_11_1","first-page":"171","article-title":"The novel universal conformity index and unconformity index algorithms for radiotherapy treatment plans","volume":"47","author":"Gonultas L","year":"2022","journal-title":"Med Dosim"},{"key":"e_1_2_11_12_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1088\/1361\u20106560\/adf370"},{"key":"e_1_2_11_13_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.phro.2025.100827"},{"key":"e_1_2_11_14_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.4103\/jmp.jmp_149_25"},{"issue":"2","key":"e_1_2_11_15_1","first-page":"21","article-title":"Comparison of VMAT and IMRT treatment planning techniques for prostate cancer","volume":"36","author":"G\u00f6n\u00fclta\u015f L","year":"2023","journal-title":"Turk J Nucl Sci"},{"key":"e_1_2_11_16_1","unstructured":"International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU).Prescribing Recording and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy. ICRU Report 50.Bethesda MD;1993."},{"issue":"3","key":"e_1_2_11_17_1","first-page":"273","article-title":"Conformity measures for stereotactic radiosurgery","volume":"4","author":"Wu QRJ","year":"2003","journal-title":"J Appl Clin Med Phys"},{"key":"e_1_2_11_18_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.radonc.2020.09.038"},{"issue":"4","key":"e_1_2_11_19_1","first-page":"737","article-title":"Evaluation of dose conformity and target coverage for IMRT in pelvic cancers","volume":"54","author":"Atiq M","year":"2017","journal-title":"Indian J Cancer"},{"issue":"5","key":"e_1_2_11_20_1","first-page":"1","article-title":"Toward an improved assessment of dose conformity in radiation therapy","volume":"51","author":"Kuperman VY","year":"2024","journal-title":"Med Phys"},{"key":"e_1_2_11_21_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1053\/j.semradonc.2003.10.003"},{"key":"e_1_2_11_22_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0167\u20108140(02)00140\u20108"},{"key":"e_1_2_11_23_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijrobp.2005.10.002"},{"key":"e_1_2_11_24_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijrobp.2010.04.041"},{"key":"e_1_2_11_25_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.radonc.2009.08.004"},{"key":"e_1_2_11_26_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijrobp.2009.03.078"}],"container-title":["Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1002\/acm2.70635","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/full-xml\/10.1002\/acm2.70635","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1002\/acm2.70635","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,26]],"date-time":"2026-10-26T16:30:04Z","timestamp":1793032204000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/10.1002\/acm2.70635"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,5]]},"references-count":25,"journal-issue":{"issue":"5","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,5]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1002\/acm2.70635"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/acm2.70635","archive":["Portico"],"relation":{},"ISSN":["1526-9914","1526-9914"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1526-9914","type":"print"},{"value":"1526-9914","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,5]]},"assertion":[{"value":"2026-02-27","order":0,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}},{"value":"2026-05-18","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}},{"value":"2026-05-24","order":3,"name":"published","label":"Published","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}}],"article-number":"e70635"}}