Cargando…

Evaluation of plan quality and treatment efficiency for single‐isocenter/two‐lesion lung stereotactic body radiation therapy

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the plan quality and treatment delivery efficiency of single‐isocenter/two‐lesions volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). MATERIALS/METHODS: Eight consecutive patients with two peripherally located early stage nonsmall...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sanford, Lana, Molloy, Janelle, Kumar, Sameera, Randall, Marcus, McGarry, Ronald, Pokhrel, Damodar
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6333146/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30548205
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12500
_version_ 1783387510418702336
author Sanford, Lana
Molloy, Janelle
Kumar, Sameera
Randall, Marcus
McGarry, Ronald
Pokhrel, Damodar
author_facet Sanford, Lana
Molloy, Janelle
Kumar, Sameera
Randall, Marcus
McGarry, Ronald
Pokhrel, Damodar
author_sort Sanford, Lana
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the plan quality and treatment delivery efficiency of single‐isocenter/two‐lesions volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). MATERIALS/METHODS: Eight consecutive patients with two peripherally located early stage nonsmall‐cell‐lung cancer (NSCLC) lung lesions underwent single‐isocenter highly conformal noncoplanar VMAT SBRT treatment in our institution. A single‐isocenter was placed between the two lesions. Doses were 54 or 50 Gy in 3 and 5 fractions respectively. Patients were treated every other day. Plans were calculated in Eclipse with AcurosXB algorithm and normalized to at least 95% of the planning target volume (PTV) receiving 100% of the prescribed dose. For comparison, two‐isocenter plans (isocenter placed centrally in each target) were retrospectively created. Conformity indices (CIs), heterogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI), gradient distance (GD), and D(2cm) were calculated. The normal lung V5, V10, V20, mean lung dose (MLD) and other organs at risk (OARs) doses were evaluated. Total number of monitor units (MUs), beam‐on time, and patient‐specific quality assurance (QA) results were recorded. RESULTS: The mean isocenter to tumor distance was 6.7 ± 2.3 cm. The mean combined PTV was 44.0 ± 23.4 cc. There was no clinically significant difference in CI, HI, GD, GI, D(2cm), and V20 including most of the OARs between single‐isocenter and two‐isocenter lung SBRT plans, evaluated per RTOG guidelines. However, for single‐isocenter plans as the distance between the lesions increased, the V5, V10, and MLD increased, marginally. The total number of MUs and beam‐on time was reduced by a factor of 1.5 for a single‐isocenter plan compared to a two‐isocenter plan. The single‐isocenter/two‐lesions VMAT lung SBRT QA plans demonstrated an accurate dose delivery of 98.1 ± 3.2% for clinical gamma passing rate of 3%/3 mm. CONCLUSION: The SBRT treatment of two peripherally located lung lesions with a centrally placed single‐isocenter was dosimetrically equivalent to two‐isocenter plans. Faster treatment delivery for single‐isocenter treatment can improve patient compliance and reduce the amount of intrafraction motion errors for well‐suited patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6333146
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63331462019-01-23 Evaluation of plan quality and treatment efficiency for single‐isocenter/two‐lesion lung stereotactic body radiation therapy Sanford, Lana Molloy, Janelle Kumar, Sameera Randall, Marcus McGarry, Ronald Pokhrel, Damodar J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the plan quality and treatment delivery efficiency of single‐isocenter/two‐lesions volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). MATERIALS/METHODS: Eight consecutive patients with two peripherally located early stage nonsmall‐cell‐lung cancer (NSCLC) lung lesions underwent single‐isocenter highly conformal noncoplanar VMAT SBRT treatment in our institution. A single‐isocenter was placed between the two lesions. Doses were 54 or 50 Gy in 3 and 5 fractions respectively. Patients were treated every other day. Plans were calculated in Eclipse with AcurosXB algorithm and normalized to at least 95% of the planning target volume (PTV) receiving 100% of the prescribed dose. For comparison, two‐isocenter plans (isocenter placed centrally in each target) were retrospectively created. Conformity indices (CIs), heterogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI), gradient distance (GD), and D(2cm) were calculated. The normal lung V5, V10, V20, mean lung dose (MLD) and other organs at risk (OARs) doses were evaluated. Total number of monitor units (MUs), beam‐on time, and patient‐specific quality assurance (QA) results were recorded. RESULTS: The mean isocenter to tumor distance was 6.7 ± 2.3 cm. The mean combined PTV was 44.0 ± 23.4 cc. There was no clinically significant difference in CI, HI, GD, GI, D(2cm), and V20 including most of the OARs between single‐isocenter and two‐isocenter lung SBRT plans, evaluated per RTOG guidelines. However, for single‐isocenter plans as the distance between the lesions increased, the V5, V10, and MLD increased, marginally. The total number of MUs and beam‐on time was reduced by a factor of 1.5 for a single‐isocenter plan compared to a two‐isocenter plan. The single‐isocenter/two‐lesions VMAT lung SBRT QA plans demonstrated an accurate dose delivery of 98.1 ± 3.2% for clinical gamma passing rate of 3%/3 mm. CONCLUSION: The SBRT treatment of two peripherally located lung lesions with a centrally placed single‐isocenter was dosimetrically equivalent to two‐isocenter plans. Faster treatment delivery for single‐isocenter treatment can improve patient compliance and reduce the amount of intrafraction motion errors for well‐suited patients. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-12-08 /pmc/articles/PMC6333146/ /pubmed/30548205 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12500 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Sanford, Lana
Molloy, Janelle
Kumar, Sameera
Randall, Marcus
McGarry, Ronald
Pokhrel, Damodar
Evaluation of plan quality and treatment efficiency for single‐isocenter/two‐lesion lung stereotactic body radiation therapy
title Evaluation of plan quality and treatment efficiency for single‐isocenter/two‐lesion lung stereotactic body radiation therapy
title_full Evaluation of plan quality and treatment efficiency for single‐isocenter/two‐lesion lung stereotactic body radiation therapy
title_fullStr Evaluation of plan quality and treatment efficiency for single‐isocenter/two‐lesion lung stereotactic body radiation therapy
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of plan quality and treatment efficiency for single‐isocenter/two‐lesion lung stereotactic body radiation therapy
title_short Evaluation of plan quality and treatment efficiency for single‐isocenter/two‐lesion lung stereotactic body radiation therapy
title_sort evaluation of plan quality and treatment efficiency for single‐isocenter/two‐lesion lung stereotactic body radiation therapy
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6333146/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30548205
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12500
work_keys_str_mv AT sanfordlana evaluationofplanqualityandtreatmentefficiencyforsingleisocentertwolesionlungstereotacticbodyradiationtherapy
AT molloyjanelle evaluationofplanqualityandtreatmentefficiencyforsingleisocentertwolesionlungstereotacticbodyradiationtherapy
AT kumarsameera evaluationofplanqualityandtreatmentefficiencyforsingleisocentertwolesionlungstereotacticbodyradiationtherapy
AT randallmarcus evaluationofplanqualityandtreatmentefficiencyforsingleisocentertwolesionlungstereotacticbodyradiationtherapy
AT mcgarryronald evaluationofplanqualityandtreatmentefficiencyforsingleisocentertwolesionlungstereotacticbodyradiationtherapy
AT pokhreldamodar evaluationofplanqualityandtreatmentefficiencyforsingleisocentertwolesionlungstereotacticbodyradiationtherapy