Elective nodal irradiation with simultaneous integrated boost stereotactic body radiotherapy for pancreatic cancer: Analyses of planning feasibility and geometrically driven DVH prediction model

PURPOSE: We evaluate the feasibility of the elective nodal irradiation strategy in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Three simultaneous integrated boost (SIB)‐SBRT plans (Boost1, Boost2, and Boost3) were retrospectively generated for each of 20 different patients. Boost1 delivered 33 and 25 Gy to PTV1 and PTV2, respectively. Boost2 delivered 40, 33, and 25 Gy to boostCTV, PTV1, and PTV2, respectively. Boost3 delivered 33 and 25 Gy to PTV1 and PTV3, respectively. PTV1 covered the initial standard SBRT plan (InitPlan) gross tumor volume (GTV). PTV2 covered CTVgeom which was created by a 10‐mm expansion (15 mm posterior) of GTV. PTV3 covered CTVprop which included elective nodal regions. The boostCTV included GTV as well as involved vasculature. The planning feasibility in each scenario and dose–volume histograms (DVHs) were analyzed and compared with the InitPlan (delivered 33 Gy only to PTV1) by paired t‐test. Next, a novel DVH prediction model was developed and its performance was evaluated according to the prediction accuracy (AC) of planning violations. Then, the model was used to simulate the impacts of GTV‐to‐organs at risk (OAR) distance and gastrointestinal (GI) OAR volume variations on planning feasibility. RESULTS: Significant dose increases were observed in GI‐OARs in SIB‐SBRT plans when compared with InitPlan. All dose constraints were met in 63% of cases in InitPlan, Boost1, and Boost2, whereas Boost3 developed DVH violations in all cases. Utilizing previous patient anatomy, the novel DVH prediction model achieved a high AC in the prediction of violations for GI‐OARs; the positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and AC were 66%, 90%, and 84%, respectively. Experiments with the model demonstrated that the larger proximity volume of GI‐OAR at the shorter distance substantially impacted on planning violations. CONCLUSIONS: SIB‐SBRT plan with geometrically defined prophylactic areas can be dosimetrically feasible, but including all nodal areas with 25 Gy in five fractions appears to be unrealistic.