skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Interinstitutional Variations in Planning for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Lung Cancer

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess interinstitutional variations in planning for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for lung cancer before the start of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) 0403 trial. Methods and Materials: Eleven institutions created virtual plans for four cases of solitary lung cancer. The created plans should satisfy the target definitions and the dose constraints for the JCOG 0403 protocol. Results: FOCUS/XiO (CMS) was used in six institutions, Eclipse (Varian) in 3, Cadplan (Varian) in one, and Pinnacle3 (Philips/ADAC) in one. Dose calculation algorithms of Clarkson with effective path length correction and superposition were used in FOCUS/XiO; pencil beam convolution with Batho power law correction was used in Eclipse and Cadplan; and collapsed cone convolution superposition was used in Pinnacle3. For the target volumes, the overall coefficient of variation was 16.6%, and the interinstitutional variations were not significant. For maximal dose, minimal dose, D95, and the homogeneity index of the planning target volume, the interinstitutional variations were significant. The dose calculation algorithm was a significant factor in these variations. No violation of the dose constraints for the protocol was observed. Conclusion: There can be notable interinstitutional variations in planning for SBRT, including both interobservermore » variations in the estimate of target volumes as well as dose calculation effects related to the use of different dose calculation algorithms.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [1];  [2];  [3];  [4];  [5];  [1];  [1];  [1];  [1];  [6];  [1]
  1. Department of Radiation Oncology and Image-applied Therapy, Kyoto University, Kyoto (Japan)
  2. Department of Radiation Oncology and Image-applied Therapy, Kyoto University, Kyoto (Japan). E-mail: nag@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp
  3. Department of Radiology, Keio University, Tokyo (Japan)
  4. Radiation Oncology, Imaging and Diagnosis, Molecular and Organ Regulation, Sapporo Medical University, Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo (Japan)
  5. Division of Preventive Medicine, Department of Community Health and Medicine, Research Institute, International Medical Center of Japan, Tokyo (Japan)
  6. Radiation Oncology Division, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa (Japan)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
20951660
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics; Journal Volume: 68; Journal Issue: 2; Other Information: DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.12.012; PII: S0360-3016(06)03652-2; Copyright (c) 2007 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, Netherlands, All rights reserved; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; ALGORITHMS; CARCINOMAS; LUNGS; PLANNING; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Matsuo, Yukinori, Takayama, Kenji, Nagata, Yasushi, Kunieda, Etsuo, Tateoka, Kunihiko, Ishizuka, Naoki, Mizowaki, Takashi, Norihisa, Yoshiki, Sakamoto, Masato, Narita, Yuichiro, Ishikura, Satoshi, and Hiraoka, Masahiro. Interinstitutional Variations in Planning for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Lung Cancer. United States: N. p., 2007. Web. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.12.012.
Matsuo, Yukinori, Takayama, Kenji, Nagata, Yasushi, Kunieda, Etsuo, Tateoka, Kunihiko, Ishizuka, Naoki, Mizowaki, Takashi, Norihisa, Yoshiki, Sakamoto, Masato, Narita, Yuichiro, Ishikura, Satoshi, & Hiraoka, Masahiro. Interinstitutional Variations in Planning for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Lung Cancer. United States. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.12.012.
Matsuo, Yukinori, Takayama, Kenji, Nagata, Yasushi, Kunieda, Etsuo, Tateoka, Kunihiko, Ishizuka, Naoki, Mizowaki, Takashi, Norihisa, Yoshiki, Sakamoto, Masato, Narita, Yuichiro, Ishikura, Satoshi, and Hiraoka, Masahiro. Fri . "Interinstitutional Variations in Planning for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Lung Cancer". United States. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.12.012.
@article{osti_20951660,
title = {Interinstitutional Variations in Planning for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Lung Cancer},
author = {Matsuo, Yukinori and Takayama, Kenji and Nagata, Yasushi and Kunieda, Etsuo and Tateoka, Kunihiko and Ishizuka, Naoki and Mizowaki, Takashi and Norihisa, Yoshiki and Sakamoto, Masato and Narita, Yuichiro and Ishikura, Satoshi and Hiraoka, Masahiro},
abstractNote = {Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess interinstitutional variations in planning for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for lung cancer before the start of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) 0403 trial. Methods and Materials: Eleven institutions created virtual plans for four cases of solitary lung cancer. The created plans should satisfy the target definitions and the dose constraints for the JCOG 0403 protocol. Results: FOCUS/XiO (CMS) was used in six institutions, Eclipse (Varian) in 3, Cadplan (Varian) in one, and Pinnacle3 (Philips/ADAC) in one. Dose calculation algorithms of Clarkson with effective path length correction and superposition were used in FOCUS/XiO; pencil beam convolution with Batho power law correction was used in Eclipse and Cadplan; and collapsed cone convolution superposition was used in Pinnacle3. For the target volumes, the overall coefficient of variation was 16.6%, and the interinstitutional variations were not significant. For maximal dose, minimal dose, D95, and the homogeneity index of the planning target volume, the interinstitutional variations were significant. The dose calculation algorithm was a significant factor in these variations. No violation of the dose constraints for the protocol was observed. Conclusion: There can be notable interinstitutional variations in planning for SBRT, including both interobserver variations in the estimate of target volumes as well as dose calculation effects related to the use of different dose calculation algorithms.},
doi = {10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.12.012},
journal = {International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics},
number = 2,
volume = 68,
place = {United States},
year = {Fri Jun 01 00:00:00 EDT 2007},
month = {Fri Jun 01 00:00:00 EDT 2007}
}
  • Purpose: To measure the CT density model variations between different CT scanners used for treatment planning and impact on the accuracy of MC dose calculation in lung SBRT. Methods: A Gammex electron density phantom (RMI 465) was scanned on two 64-slice CT scanners (GE LightSpeed VCT64) and a 16-slice CT (Philips Brilliance Big Bore CT). All three scanners had been used to acquire CT for CyberKnife lung SBRT treatment planning. To minimize the influences of beam hardening and scatter for improving reproducibility, three scans were acquired with the phantom rotated 120° between scans. The mean CT HU of each densitymore » insert, averaged over the three scans, was used to build the CT density models. For 14 patient plans, repeat MC dose calculations were performed by using the scanner-specific CT density models and compared to a baseline CT density model in the base plans. All dose re-calculations were done using the same plan beam configurations and MUs. Comparisons of dosimetric parameters included PTV volume covered by prescription dose, mean PTV dose, V5 and V20 for lungs, and the maximum dose to the closest critical organ. Results: Up to 50.7 HU variations in CT density models were observed over the baseline CT density model. For 14 patient plans examined, maximum differences in MC dose re-calculations were less than 2% in 71.4% of the cases, less than 5% in 85.7% of the cases, and 5–10% for 14.3% of the cases. As all the base plans well exceeded the clinical objectives of target coverage and OAR sparing, none of the observed differences led to clinically significant concerns. Conclusion: Marked variations of CT density models were observed for three different CT scanners. Though the differences can cause up to 5–10% differences in MC dose calculations, it was found that they caused no clinically significant concerns.« less
  • Purpose: To investigate the dosimetric effects of adaptive planning on lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Methods and Materials: Forty of 66 consecutive lung SBRT patients were selected for a retrospective adaptive planning study. CBCT images acquired at each fraction were used for treatment planning. Adaptive plans were created using the same planning parameters as the original CT-based plan, with the goal to achieve comparable comformality index (CI). For each patient, 2 cumulative plans, nonadaptive plan (P{sub NON}) and adaptive plan (P{sub ADP}), were generated and compared for the following organs-at-risks (OARs): cord, esophagus, chest wall, and the lungs. Dosimetricmore » comparison was performed between P{sub NON} and P{sub ADP} for all 40 patients. Correlations were evaluated between changes in dosimetric metrics induced by adaptive planning and potential impacting factors, including tumor-to-OAR distances (d{sub T-OAR}), initial internal target volume (ITV{sub 1}), ITV change (ΔITV), and effective ITV diameter change (Δd{sub ITV}). Results: 34 (85%) patients showed ITV decrease and 6 (15%) patients showed ITV increase throughout the course of lung SBRT. Percentage ITV change ranged from −59.6% to 13.0%, with a mean (±SD) of −21.0% (±21.4%). On average of all patients, P{sub ADP} resulted in significantly (P=0 to .045) lower values for all dosimetric metrics. Δd{sub ITV}/d{sub T-OAR} was found to correlate with changes in dose to 5 cc (ΔD5cc) of esophagus (r=0.61) and dose to 30 cc (ΔD30cc) of chest wall (r=0.81). Stronger correlations between Δd{sub ITV}/d{sub T-OAR} and ΔD30cc of chest wall were discovered for peripheral (r=0.81) and central (r=0.84) tumors, respectively. Conclusions: Dosimetric effects of adaptive lung SBRT planning depend upon target volume changes and tumor-to-OAR distances. Adaptive lung SBRT can potentially reduce dose to adjacent OARs if patients present large tumor volume shrinkage during the treatment.« less
  • Purpose: This study evaluates the dosimetric differences using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients previously treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy IMRT for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in early stage lung cancer. Methods: We evaluated 9 consecutive medically inoperable lung cancer patients at the start of the SBRT program who were treated with IMRT from November 2010 to October 2011. These patients were treated using 6 MV energy. The 9 cases were then re-planned with VMAT performed with arc therapy using 6 MV flattening filter free (FFF) energy with the same organs at risk (OARS) constraints. Data collected formore » the treatment plans included target coverage, beam on time, dose to OARS and gamma pass rate. Results: Five patients were T1N0 and four patients were T2N0 with all tumors less than 5 cm. The average GTV was 13.02 cm3 (0.83–40.87) and average PTV was 44.65 cm3 (14.06–118.08). The IMRT plans had a mean of 7.2 angles (6–9) and 5.4 minutes (3.6–11.1) per plan. The VMAT plans had a mean of 2.8 arcs (2–3) and 4.0 minutes (2.2–6.0) per plan. VMAT had slightly more target coverage than IMRT with average increase in D95 of 2.68% (1.24–5.73) and D99 of 3.65% (0.88–8.77). VMAT produced lower doses to all OARs. The largest reductions were in maximum doses to the spinal cord with an average reduction of 24.1%, esophagus with an average reduction of 22.1%, and lung with an average reduction in the V20 of 16.3% The mean gamma pass rate was 99.8% (99.2–100) at 3 mm and 3% for VMAT with comparable values for IMRT. Conclusion: These findings suggest that using VMAT for SBRT in early stage lung cancer is superior to IMRT in terms of dose coverage, OAR dose and a lower treatment delivery time with a similar gamma pass rate.« less
  • Purpose: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for early-stage inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients delivers high doses that require high-precision treatment. Typically, image guidance is used to minimize day-to-day target displacement, but intrafraction position variability is often not corrected. Currently, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is replacing intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in many departments because of its shorter delivery time. This study aimed to evaluate whether intrafraction variation in VMAT patients is reduced in comparison with patients treated with IMRT. Methods and Materials: NSCLC patients (197 IMRT and 112 VMAT) treated with a frameless SBRT technique to amore » prescribed dose of 3 × 18 Gy were evaluated. Image guidance for both techniques was identical: pretreatment cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) (CBCT{sub precorr}) for setup correction followed immediately before treatment by postcorrection CBCT (CBCT{sub postcorr}) for verification. Then, after either a noncoplanar IMRT technique or a VMAT technique, a posttreatment (CBCT{sub postRT}) scan was acquired. The CBCT{sub postRT} and CBCT{sub postcorr} scans were then used to evaluate intrafraction motion. Treatment delivery times, systematic (Σ) and random (σ) intrafraction variations, and associated planning target volume (PTV) margins were calculated. Results: The median treatment delivery time was significantly reduced by 20 minutes (range, 32-12 minutes) using VMAT compared with noncoplanar IMRT. Intrafraction tumor motion was significantly larger for IMRT in all directions up to 0.5 mm systematic (Σ) and 0.7 mm random (σ). The required PTV margins for IMRT and VMAT differed by less than 0.3 mm. Conclusion: VMAT-based SBRT for NSCLC was associated with significantly shorter delivery times and correspondingly smaller intrafraction motion compared with noncoplanar IMRT. However, the impact on the required PTV margin was small.« less
  • Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) achieves excellent local control for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), but may increase late duodenal toxicity. Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivers intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with a rotating gantry rather than multiple fixed beams. This study dosimetrically evaluates the feasibility of implementing duodenal constraints for SBRT using VMAT vs IMRT. Non–duodenal sparing (NS) and duodenal-sparing (DS) VMAT and IMRT plans delivering 25 Gy in 1 fraction were generated for 15 patients with LAPC. DS plans were constrained to duodenal D{sub max} of<30 Gy at any point. VMAT used 1 360° coplanar arc with 4° spacingmore » between control points, whereas IMRT used 9 coplanar beams with fixed gantry positions at 40° angles. Dosimetric parameters for target volumes and organs at risk were compared for DS planning vs NS planning and VMAT vs IMRT using paired-sample Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Both DS VMAT and DS IMRT achieved significantly reduced duodenal D{sub mean}, D{sub max}, D{sub 1cc}, D{sub 4%}, and V{sub 20} {sub Gy} compared with NS plans (all p≤0.002). DS constraints compromised target coverage for IMRT as demonstrated by reduced V{sub 95%} (p = 0.01) and D{sub mean} (p = 0.02), but not for VMAT. DS constraints resulted in increased dose to right kidney, spinal cord, stomach, and liver for VMAT. Direct comparison of DS VMAT and DS IMRT revealed that VMAT was superior in sparing the left kidney (p<0.001) and the spinal cord (p<0.001), whereas IMRT was superior in sparing the stomach (p = 0.05) and the liver (p = 0.003). DS VMAT required 21% fewer monitor units (p<0.001) and delivered treatment 2.4 minutes faster (p<0.001) than DS IMRT. Implementing DS constraints during SBRT planning for LAPC can significantly reduce duodenal point or volumetric dose parameters for both VMAT and IMRT. The primary consequence of implementing DS constraints for VMAT is increased dose to other organs at risk, whereas for IMRT it is compromised target coverage. These findings suggest clinical situations where each technique may be most useful if DS constraints are to be employed.« less