Cargando…

Comprehensive dosimetric planning comparison for early‐stage, non‐small cell lung cancer with SABR: fixed‐beam IMRT versus VMAT versus TomoTherapy

Volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is emerging as a leading technology in treating early‐stage, non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). However, two other modalities capable of delivering intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) include fixed‐beam...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xhaferllari, Ilma, El‐Sherif, Omar, Gaede, Stewart
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5874107/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27685129
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i5.6291
_version_ 1783310106000097280
author Xhaferllari, Ilma
El‐Sherif, Omar
Gaede, Stewart
author_facet Xhaferllari, Ilma
El‐Sherif, Omar
Gaede, Stewart
author_sort Xhaferllari, Ilma
collection PubMed
description Volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is emerging as a leading technology in treating early‐stage, non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). However, two other modalities capable of delivering intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) include fixed‐beam and helical TomoTherapy (HT). This study aims to provide an extensive dosimetric comparison among these various IMRT techniques for treating early‐stage NSCLC with SABR. Ten early‐stage NSCLC patients were retrospectively optimized using three fixed‐beam techniques via nine to eleven beams (high and low modulation step‐and‐shoot (SS), and sliding window (SW)), two VMAT techniques via two partial arcs (SmartArc (SA) and RapidArc (RA)), and three HT techniques via three different fan beam widths (1 cm, 2.5 cm, and 5 cm) for 80 plans total. Fixed‐beam and VMAT plans were generated using flattening filter‐free beams. SS and SA, HT treatment plans, and SW and RA were optimized using Pinnacle v9.1, Tomoplan v.3.1.1, and Eclipse (Acuros XB v11.3 algorithm), respectively. Dose‐volume histogram statistics, dose conformality, and treatment delivery efficiency were analyzed. VMAT treatment plans achieved significantly lower values for contralateral lung [Formula: see text] compared to the HT plans, and significantly lower mean lung dose ([Formula: see text]) compared to HT 5 cm treatment plans. In the comparison between the VMAT techniques, a significant reduction in the total monitor units ([Formula: see text]) was found in the SA plans, while a significant decrease was observed in the dose falloff parameter, [Formula: see text] , ([Formula: see text]), for the RA treatments. The maximum cord dose was significantly reduced ([Formula: see text]) in grouped RA&SA plans compared to SS. Estimated treatment time was significantly higher for HT and fixed‐beam plans compared to RA&SA ([Formula: see text]). Although, a significant difference was not observed in the RA vs. SA ([Formula: see text]). RA&SA outperformed HT in all parameters measured. Despite an increase in dose to the heart and bronchus, this study demonstrates that VMAT is dosimetrically advantageous in treating early‐stage NSCLC with SABR compared to fixed‐beam, while providing significantly shorter treatment times. PACS number(s): 87.55.D, 87.55.dk, 87.55.kd
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5874107
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58741072018-04-02 Comprehensive dosimetric planning comparison for early‐stage, non‐small cell lung cancer with SABR: fixed‐beam IMRT versus VMAT versus TomoTherapy Xhaferllari, Ilma El‐Sherif, Omar Gaede, Stewart J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics Volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is emerging as a leading technology in treating early‐stage, non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). However, two other modalities capable of delivering intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) include fixed‐beam and helical TomoTherapy (HT). This study aims to provide an extensive dosimetric comparison among these various IMRT techniques for treating early‐stage NSCLC with SABR. Ten early‐stage NSCLC patients were retrospectively optimized using three fixed‐beam techniques via nine to eleven beams (high and low modulation step‐and‐shoot (SS), and sliding window (SW)), two VMAT techniques via two partial arcs (SmartArc (SA) and RapidArc (RA)), and three HT techniques via three different fan beam widths (1 cm, 2.5 cm, and 5 cm) for 80 plans total. Fixed‐beam and VMAT plans were generated using flattening filter‐free beams. SS and SA, HT treatment plans, and SW and RA were optimized using Pinnacle v9.1, Tomoplan v.3.1.1, and Eclipse (Acuros XB v11.3 algorithm), respectively. Dose‐volume histogram statistics, dose conformality, and treatment delivery efficiency were analyzed. VMAT treatment plans achieved significantly lower values for contralateral lung [Formula: see text] compared to the HT plans, and significantly lower mean lung dose ([Formula: see text]) compared to HT 5 cm treatment plans. In the comparison between the VMAT techniques, a significant reduction in the total monitor units ([Formula: see text]) was found in the SA plans, while a significant decrease was observed in the dose falloff parameter, [Formula: see text] , ([Formula: see text]), for the RA treatments. The maximum cord dose was significantly reduced ([Formula: see text]) in grouped RA&SA plans compared to SS. Estimated treatment time was significantly higher for HT and fixed‐beam plans compared to RA&SA ([Formula: see text]). Although, a significant difference was not observed in the RA vs. SA ([Formula: see text]). RA&SA outperformed HT in all parameters measured. Despite an increase in dose to the heart and bronchus, this study demonstrates that VMAT is dosimetrically advantageous in treating early‐stage NSCLC with SABR compared to fixed‐beam, while providing significantly shorter treatment times. PACS number(s): 87.55.D, 87.55.dk, 87.55.kd John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-09-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5874107/ /pubmed/27685129 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i5.6291 Text en © 2016 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Xhaferllari, Ilma
El‐Sherif, Omar
Gaede, Stewart
Comprehensive dosimetric planning comparison for early‐stage, non‐small cell lung cancer with SABR: fixed‐beam IMRT versus VMAT versus TomoTherapy
title Comprehensive dosimetric planning comparison for early‐stage, non‐small cell lung cancer with SABR: fixed‐beam IMRT versus VMAT versus TomoTherapy
title_full Comprehensive dosimetric planning comparison for early‐stage, non‐small cell lung cancer with SABR: fixed‐beam IMRT versus VMAT versus TomoTherapy
title_fullStr Comprehensive dosimetric planning comparison for early‐stage, non‐small cell lung cancer with SABR: fixed‐beam IMRT versus VMAT versus TomoTherapy
title_full_unstemmed Comprehensive dosimetric planning comparison for early‐stage, non‐small cell lung cancer with SABR: fixed‐beam IMRT versus VMAT versus TomoTherapy
title_short Comprehensive dosimetric planning comparison for early‐stage, non‐small cell lung cancer with SABR: fixed‐beam IMRT versus VMAT versus TomoTherapy
title_sort comprehensive dosimetric planning comparison for early‐stage, non‐small cell lung cancer with sabr: fixed‐beam imrt versus vmat versus tomotherapy
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5874107/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27685129
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i5.6291
work_keys_str_mv AT xhaferllariilma comprehensivedosimetricplanningcomparisonforearlystagenonsmallcelllungcancerwithsabrfixedbeamimrtversusvmatversustomotherapy
AT elsherifomar comprehensivedosimetricplanningcomparisonforearlystagenonsmallcelllungcancerwithsabrfixedbeamimrtversusvmatversustomotherapy
AT gaedestewart comprehensivedosimetricplanningcomparisonforearlystagenonsmallcelllungcancerwithsabrfixedbeamimrtversusvmatversustomotherapy