Cargando…

Viability of Noncoplanar VMAT for liver SBRT compared with coplanar VMAT and beam orientation optimized 4π IMRT

PURPOSE: The 4π static noncoplanar radiation therapy delivery technique has demonstrated better normal tissue sparing and dose conformity than the clinically used volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). It is unclear whether this is a fundamental limitation of VMAT delivery or the coplanar nature o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Woods, Kaley, Nguyen, Dan, Tran, Angelia, Yu, Victoria Y., Cao, Minsong, Niu, Tianye, Lee, Percy, Sheng, Ke
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4834900/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27104216
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2015.12.004
_version_ 1782427549522984960
author Woods, Kaley
Nguyen, Dan
Tran, Angelia
Yu, Victoria Y.
Cao, Minsong
Niu, Tianye
Lee, Percy
Sheng, Ke
author_facet Woods, Kaley
Nguyen, Dan
Tran, Angelia
Yu, Victoria Y.
Cao, Minsong
Niu, Tianye
Lee, Percy
Sheng, Ke
author_sort Woods, Kaley
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The 4π static noncoplanar radiation therapy delivery technique has demonstrated better normal tissue sparing and dose conformity than the clinically used volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). It is unclear whether this is a fundamental limitation of VMAT delivery or the coplanar nature of its typical clinical plans. The dosimetry and the limits of normal tissue toxicity constrained dose escalation of coplanar VMAT, noncoplanar VMAT and 4π radiation therapy are quantified in this study. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Clinical stereotactic body radiation therapy plans for 20 liver patients receiving 30 to 60 Gy using coplanar VMAT (cVMAT) were replanned using 3 to 4 partial noncoplanar arcs (nVMAT) and 4π with 20 intensity modulated noncoplanar fields. The conformity number, homogeneity index, 50% dose spillage volume, normal liver volume receiving >15 Gy, dose to organs at risk (OARs), and tumor control probability were compared for all 3 treatment plans. The maximum tolerable dose yielding a normal liver normal tissue control probability <1%, 5%, and 10% was calculated with the Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model for each plan as well as the resulting survival fractions at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years. RESULTS: Compared with cVMAT, the nVMAT and 4π plans reduced liver volume receiving >15 Gy by an average of 5 cm(3) and 80 cm(3), respectively. 4π reduced the 50% dose spillage volume by ∼23% compared with both VMAT plans, and either significantly decreased or maintained OAR doses. The 4π maximum tolerable doses and survival fractions were significantly higher than both cVMAT and nVMAT (P < .05) for all normal liver normal tissue control probability limits used in this study. CONCLUSIONS: The 4π technique provides significantly better OAR sparing than both cVMAT and nVMAT and enables more clinically relevant dose escalation for tumor local control. Therefore, despite the current accessibility of nVMAT, it is not a viable alternative to 4π for liver SBRT.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4834900
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48349002017-01-01 Viability of Noncoplanar VMAT for liver SBRT compared with coplanar VMAT and beam orientation optimized 4π IMRT Woods, Kaley Nguyen, Dan Tran, Angelia Yu, Victoria Y. Cao, Minsong Niu, Tianye Lee, Percy Sheng, Ke Adv Radiat Oncol Scientific Article PURPOSE: The 4π static noncoplanar radiation therapy delivery technique has demonstrated better normal tissue sparing and dose conformity than the clinically used volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). It is unclear whether this is a fundamental limitation of VMAT delivery or the coplanar nature of its typical clinical plans. The dosimetry and the limits of normal tissue toxicity constrained dose escalation of coplanar VMAT, noncoplanar VMAT and 4π radiation therapy are quantified in this study. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Clinical stereotactic body radiation therapy plans for 20 liver patients receiving 30 to 60 Gy using coplanar VMAT (cVMAT) were replanned using 3 to 4 partial noncoplanar arcs (nVMAT) and 4π with 20 intensity modulated noncoplanar fields. The conformity number, homogeneity index, 50% dose spillage volume, normal liver volume receiving >15 Gy, dose to organs at risk (OARs), and tumor control probability were compared for all 3 treatment plans. The maximum tolerable dose yielding a normal liver normal tissue control probability <1%, 5%, and 10% was calculated with the Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model for each plan as well as the resulting survival fractions at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years. RESULTS: Compared with cVMAT, the nVMAT and 4π plans reduced liver volume receiving >15 Gy by an average of 5 cm(3) and 80 cm(3), respectively. 4π reduced the 50% dose spillage volume by ∼23% compared with both VMAT plans, and either significantly decreased or maintained OAR doses. The 4π maximum tolerable doses and survival fractions were significantly higher than both cVMAT and nVMAT (P < .05) for all normal liver normal tissue control probability limits used in this study. CONCLUSIONS: The 4π technique provides significantly better OAR sparing than both cVMAT and nVMAT and enables more clinically relevant dose escalation for tumor local control. Therefore, despite the current accessibility of nVMAT, it is not a viable alternative to 4π for liver SBRT. Elsevier 2016-01-05 /pmc/articles/PMC4834900/ /pubmed/27104216 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2015.12.004 Text en © 2016 The Authors on behalf of the American Society for Radiation Oncology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Scientific Article
Woods, Kaley
Nguyen, Dan
Tran, Angelia
Yu, Victoria Y.
Cao, Minsong
Niu, Tianye
Lee, Percy
Sheng, Ke
Viability of Noncoplanar VMAT for liver SBRT compared with coplanar VMAT and beam orientation optimized 4π IMRT
title Viability of Noncoplanar VMAT for liver SBRT compared with coplanar VMAT and beam orientation optimized 4π IMRT
title_full Viability of Noncoplanar VMAT for liver SBRT compared with coplanar VMAT and beam orientation optimized 4π IMRT
title_fullStr Viability of Noncoplanar VMAT for liver SBRT compared with coplanar VMAT and beam orientation optimized 4π IMRT
title_full_unstemmed Viability of Noncoplanar VMAT for liver SBRT compared with coplanar VMAT and beam orientation optimized 4π IMRT
title_short Viability of Noncoplanar VMAT for liver SBRT compared with coplanar VMAT and beam orientation optimized 4π IMRT
title_sort viability of noncoplanar vmat for liver sbrt compared with coplanar vmat and beam orientation optimized 4π imrt
topic Scientific Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4834900/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27104216
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2015.12.004
work_keys_str_mv AT woodskaley viabilityofnoncoplanarvmatforliversbrtcomparedwithcoplanarvmatandbeamorientationoptimized4pimrt
AT nguyendan viabilityofnoncoplanarvmatforliversbrtcomparedwithcoplanarvmatandbeamorientationoptimized4pimrt
AT tranangelia viabilityofnoncoplanarvmatforliversbrtcomparedwithcoplanarvmatandbeamorientationoptimized4pimrt
AT yuvictoriay viabilityofnoncoplanarvmatforliversbrtcomparedwithcoplanarvmatandbeamorientationoptimized4pimrt
AT caominsong viabilityofnoncoplanarvmatforliversbrtcomparedwithcoplanarvmatandbeamorientationoptimized4pimrt
AT niutianye viabilityofnoncoplanarvmatforliversbrtcomparedwithcoplanarvmatandbeamorientationoptimized4pimrt
AT leepercy viabilityofnoncoplanarvmatforliversbrtcomparedwithcoplanarvmatandbeamorientationoptimized4pimrt
AT shengke viabilityofnoncoplanarvmatforliversbrtcomparedwithcoplanarvmatandbeamorientationoptimized4pimrt