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

Title: A planning comparison of 3-dimensional conformal multiple static field, conformal arc, and volumetric modulated arc therapy for the delivery of stereotactic body radiotherapy for early stage lung cancer

Abstract

The primary objective of this study was to compare dosimetric variables as well as treatment times of multiple static fields (MSFs), conformal arcs (CAs), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques for the treatment of early stage lung cancer using stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Treatments of 23 patients previously treated with MSF of 48 Gy to 95% of the planning target volume (PTV) in 4 fractions were replanned using CA and VMAT techniques. Dosimetric parameters of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0915 trial were evaluated, along with the van't Riet conformation number (CN), monitor units (MUs), and actual and calculated treatment times. Paired t-tests for noninferiority were used to compare the 3 techniques. CA had significant dosimetric improvements over MSF for the ratio of the prescription isodose volume to PTV (R{sub 100%}, p < 0.0001), the maximum dose 2 cm away from the PTV (D{sub 2} {sub cm}, p = 0.005), and van't Riet CN (p < 0.0001). CA was not statistically inferior to MSF for the 50% prescription isodose volume to PTV (R{sub 50%}, p = 0.05). VMAT was significantly better than CA for R{sub 100%} (p < 0.0001), R{sub 50%} (p < 0.0001), D{sub 2} {sub cm}more » (p = 0.006), and CN (p < 0.0001). CA plans had significantly shorter treatment times than those of VMAT (p < 0.0001). Both CA and VMAT planning showed significant dosimetric improvements and shorter treatment times over those of MSF. VMAT showed the most favorable dosimetry of all 3 techniques; however, the dosimetric effect of tumor motion was not evaluated. CA plans were significantly faster to treat, and minimize the interplay of tumor motion and dynamic multileaf collimator (MLC) motion effects. Given these results, CA has become the treatment technique of choice at our facility.« less

Authors:
 [1]; ;  [2];  [3];  [1];  [2];  [2];  [4]
  1. Department of Medical Physics, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, Alberta (Canada)
  2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, Alberta (Canada)
  3. Department of Medical Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, Alberta (Canada)
  4. (Canada)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22577847
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Dosimetry; Journal Volume: 40; Journal Issue: 4; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2015 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; 62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; BEAM MONITORS; COLLIMATORS; DOSIMETRY; LUNGS; NEOPLASMS; PATIENTS; PLANNING; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Dickey, Mike, Roa, Wilson, Drodge, Suzanne, Ghosh, Sunita, Murray, Brad, Scrimger, Rufus, Gabos, Zsolt, E-mail: zgabos@ualberta.ca, and Department of Medical Physics, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, Alberta. A planning comparison of 3-dimensional conformal multiple static field, conformal arc, and volumetric modulated arc therapy for the delivery of stereotactic body radiotherapy for early stage lung cancer. United States: N. p., 2015. Web. doi:10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2015.04.006.
Dickey, Mike, Roa, Wilson, Drodge, Suzanne, Ghosh, Sunita, Murray, Brad, Scrimger, Rufus, Gabos, Zsolt, E-mail: zgabos@ualberta.ca, & Department of Medical Physics, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, Alberta. A planning comparison of 3-dimensional conformal multiple static field, conformal arc, and volumetric modulated arc therapy for the delivery of stereotactic body radiotherapy for early stage lung cancer. United States. doi:10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2015.04.006.
Dickey, Mike, Roa, Wilson, Drodge, Suzanne, Ghosh, Sunita, Murray, Brad, Scrimger, Rufus, Gabos, Zsolt, E-mail: zgabos@ualberta.ca, and Department of Medical Physics, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, Alberta. Thu . "A planning comparison of 3-dimensional conformal multiple static field, conformal arc, and volumetric modulated arc therapy for the delivery of stereotactic body radiotherapy for early stage lung cancer". United States. doi:10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2015.04.006.
@article{osti_22577847,
title = {A planning comparison of 3-dimensional conformal multiple static field, conformal arc, and volumetric modulated arc therapy for the delivery of stereotactic body radiotherapy for early stage lung cancer},
author = {Dickey, Mike and Roa, Wilson and Drodge, Suzanne and Ghosh, Sunita and Murray, Brad and Scrimger, Rufus and Gabos, Zsolt, E-mail: zgabos@ualberta.ca and Department of Medical Physics, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, Alberta},
abstractNote = {The primary objective of this study was to compare dosimetric variables as well as treatment times of multiple static fields (MSFs), conformal arcs (CAs), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques for the treatment of early stage lung cancer using stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Treatments of 23 patients previously treated with MSF of 48 Gy to 95% of the planning target volume (PTV) in 4 fractions were replanned using CA and VMAT techniques. Dosimetric parameters of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0915 trial were evaluated, along with the van't Riet conformation number (CN), monitor units (MUs), and actual and calculated treatment times. Paired t-tests for noninferiority were used to compare the 3 techniques. CA had significant dosimetric improvements over MSF for the ratio of the prescription isodose volume to PTV (R{sub 100%}, p < 0.0001), the maximum dose 2 cm away from the PTV (D{sub 2} {sub cm}, p = 0.005), and van't Riet CN (p < 0.0001). CA was not statistically inferior to MSF for the 50% prescription isodose volume to PTV (R{sub 50%}, p = 0.05). VMAT was significantly better than CA for R{sub 100%} (p < 0.0001), R{sub 50%} (p < 0.0001), D{sub 2} {sub cm} (p = 0.006), and CN (p < 0.0001). CA plans had significantly shorter treatment times than those of VMAT (p < 0.0001). Both CA and VMAT planning showed significant dosimetric improvements and shorter treatment times over those of MSF. VMAT showed the most favorable dosimetry of all 3 techniques; however, the dosimetric effect of tumor motion was not evaluated. CA plans were significantly faster to treat, and minimize the interplay of tumor motion and dynamic multileaf collimator (MLC) motion effects. Given these results, CA has become the treatment technique of choice at our facility.},
doi = {10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2015.04.006},
journal = {Medical Dosimetry},
number = 4,
volume = 40,
place = {United States},
year = {Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 EST 2015},
month = {Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 EST 2015}
}
  • 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
  • We evaluated the feasibility of planning stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for large central early-stage non−small cell lung cancer with a tri-cobalt-60 (tri-{sup 60}Co) system equipped with real-time magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guidance, as compared to linear accelerator (LINAC)–based SBRT. In all, 20 patients with large central early-stage non−small cell lung cancer who were treated between 2010 and 2015 with LINAC-based SBRT were replanned using a tri-{sup 60}Co system for a prescription dose of 50 Gy in 4 fractions. Doses to organs at risk were evaluated based on established MD Anderson constraints for central lung SBRT. R{sub 100} values were calculatedmore » as the total tissue volume receiving 100% of the dose (V{sub 100}) divided by the planning target volume and compared to assess dose conformity. Dosimetric comparisons between LINAC-based and tri-{sup 60}Co SBRT plans were performed using Student's t-test and Wilcoxon Ranks test. Blinded reviews by radiation oncologists were performed to assess the suitability of both plans for clinical delivery. The mean planning target volume was 48.3 cc (range: 12.1 to 139.4 cc). Of the tri-{sup 60}Co SBRT plans, a mean 97.4% of dosimetric parameters per patient met MD Anderson dose constraints, whereas a mean 98.8% of dosimetric parameters per patient were met with LINAC-based SBRT planning (p = 0.056). R{sub 100} values were similar between both plans (1.20 vs 1.21, p = 0.79). Upon blinded review by 4 radiation oncologists, an average of 90% of the tri-{sup 60}Co SBRT plans were considered acceptable for clinical delivery compared with 100% of the corresponding LINAC-based SBRT plans (p = 0.17). SBRT planning using the tri-{sup 60}Co system with built-in MRI is feasible and achieves clinically acceptable plans for most central lung patients, with similar target dose conformity and organ at risk dosimetry. The added benefit of real-time MRI-guided therapy may further optimize tumor targeting while improving normal tissue sparing, which warrants further investigation in a prospective feasibility clinical trial.« less
  • Purpose: Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is a novel form of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) optimization that allows the radiation dose to be delivered in a single gantry rotation of up to 360{sup o}, using either a constant dose rate (cdr-VMAT) or variable dose rate (vdr-VMAT) during rotation. The goal of this study was to compare VMAT prostate RT plans with three-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT) and IMRT plans. Patients and Methods: The 3D-CRT, five-field IMRT, cdr-VMAT, and vdr-VMAT RT plans were created for 10 computed tomography data sets from patients undergoing RT for prostate cancer. The parameters evaluated included the dosesmore » to organs at risk, equivalent uniform doses, dose homogeneity and conformality, and monitor units required for delivery of a 2-Gy fraction. Results: The IMRT and both VMAT techniques resulted in lower doses to normal critical structures than 3D-CRT plans for nearly all dosimetric endpoints analyzed. The lowest doses to organs at risk and most favorable equivalent uniform doses were achieved with vdr-VMAT, which was significantly better than IMRT for the rectal and femoral head dosimetric endpoints (p < 0.05) and significantly better than cdr-VMAT for most bladder and rectal endpoints (p < 0.05). The vdr-VMAT and cdr-VMAT plans required fewer monitor units than did the IMRT plans (relative reduction of 42% and 38%, respectively; p = 0.005) but more than for the 3D-CRT plans (p = 0.005). Conclusion: The IMRT and VMAT techniques achieved highly conformal treatment plans. The vdr-VMAT technique resulted in more favorable dose distributions than the IMRT or cdr-VMAT techniques, and reduced the monitor units required compared with IMRT.« less
  • Purpose: To perform a comparison of two pelvic lymph node volume delineation strategies used in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for high risk prostate cancer and to determine the role of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Methods and Materials: Eighteen consecutive patients accrued to an ongoing clinical trial were identified according to either the nodal contouring strategy as described based on lymphotropic nanoparticle-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging technology (9 patients) or the current Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) consensus guidelines (9 patients). Radiation consisted of 45 Gy to prostate, seminal vesicles, and lymph nodes, with a simultaneous integrated boost to the prostate alone,more » to a total dose of 67.5 Gy delivered in 25 fractions. Prospective acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were compared at baseline, during radiotherapy, and 3 months after radiotherapy. Each patient was retrospectively replanned using the opposite method of nodal contouring, and plans were normalized for dosimetric comparison. VMAT plans were also generated according to the RTOG method for comparison. Results: RTOG plans resulted in a significantly lower rate of genitourinary frequency 3 months after treatment. The dosimetric comparison showed that the RTOG plans resulted in both favorable planning target volume (PTV) coverage and lower organs at risk (OARs) and integral (ID) doses. VMAT required two to three arcs to achieve adequate treatment plans, we did not observe consistent dosimetric benefits to either the PTV or the OARs, and a higher ID was observed. However, treatment times were significantly shorter with VMAT. Conclusion: The RTOG guidelines for pelvic nodal volume delineation results in favorable dosimetry and acceptable acute toxicities for both the target and OARs. We are unable to conclude that VMAT provides a benefit compared with IMRT.« less
  • Purpose: To demonstrate the potential of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) compared with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques with a limited number of segments for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for early-stage lung cancer. Methods and Materials: For a random selection of 27 patients eligible for SBRT, coplanar and noncoplanar IMRT and coplanar VMAT (using SmartArc) treatment plans were generated in Pinnacle{sup 3} and compared. In addition, film measurements were performed using an anthropomorphic phantom to evaluate the skin dose for the different treatment techniques. Results: Using VMAT, the delivery times could be reduced to an average of 6.6 min compared with 23.7more » min with noncoplanar IMRT. The mean dose to the healthy lung was 4.1 Gy for VMAT and noncoplanar IMRT and 4.2 Gy for coplanar IMRT. The volume of healthy lung receiving >5 Gy and >20 Gy was 18.0% and 5.4% for VMAT, 18.5% and 5.0% for noncoplanar IMRT, and 19.4% and 5.7% for coplanar IMRT, respectively. The dose conformity at 100% and 50% of the prescribed dose of 54 Gy was 1.13 and 5.17 for VMAT, 1.11 and 4.80 for noncoplanar IMRT and 1.12 and 5.31 for coplanar IMRT, respectively. The measured skin doses were comparable for VMAT and noncoplanar IMRT and slightly greater for coplanar IMRT. Conclusions: Coplanar VMAT for SBRT for early-stage lung cancer achieved plan quality and skin dose levels comparable to those using noncoplanar IMRT and slightly better than those with coplanar IMRT. In addition, the delivery time could be reduced by {<=}70% with VMAT.« less