Cargando…
A treatment-planning comparison of three beam arrangement strategies for stereotactic body radiation therapy for centrally located lung tumors using volumetric-modulated arc therapy
The purpose of this study was to determine appropriate beam arrangement for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT)-based stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in the treatment of patients with centrally located lung tumors. Fifteen consecutive patients with centrally located lung tumors treate...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4915539/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26951076 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rrv105 |
Sumario: | The purpose of this study was to determine appropriate beam arrangement for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT)-based stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in the treatment of patients with centrally located lung tumors. Fifteen consecutive patients with centrally located lung tumors treated at our institution were enrolled. For each patient, three VMAT plans were generated using two coplanar partial arcs (CP VMAT), two non-coplanar partial arcs (NCP VMAT), and one coplanar full arc (Full VMAT). All plans were designed to deliver 70 Gy in 10 fractions. Target coverage and sparing of organs at risk (OARs) were compared across techniques. PTV coverage was almost identical for all approaches. The whole lung V(10Gy) was significantly lower with CP VMAT plans than with NCP VMAT plans, whereas no significant differences in the mean lung dose, V(5Gy), V(20Gy) or V(40Gy) were observed. Full VMAT increased mean contralateral lung V(5Gy) by 12.57% and 9.15% when compared with NCP VMAT and CP VMAT, respectively. Although NCP VMAT plans best achieved the dose–volume constraints for mediastinal OARs, the absolute differences in dose were small when compared with CP VMAT. These results suggest that partial-arc VMAT may be preferable to minimize unnecessary exposure to the contralateral lung, and use of NCP VMAT should be considered when the dose–volume constraints are not achieved by CP VMAT. |
---|