Cargando…

Can reducing planning safety margins broaden the inclusion criteria for lung stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy?

INTRODUCTION: Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is currently indicated for inoperable, early‐stage non‐small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). Advancements in image‐guidance technology continue to improve treatment precision and enable reductions in planning safety margins. We investigated t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ghandourh, Wsam, Batumalai, Vikneswary, Boxer, Miriam, Holloway, Lois
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8424332/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33934559
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.469
_version_ 1783749653901082624
author Ghandourh, Wsam
Batumalai, Vikneswary
Boxer, Miriam
Holloway, Lois
author_facet Ghandourh, Wsam
Batumalai, Vikneswary
Boxer, Miriam
Holloway, Lois
author_sort Ghandourh, Wsam
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is currently indicated for inoperable, early‐stage non‐small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). Advancements in image‐guidance technology continue to improve treatment precision and enable reductions in planning safety margins. We investigated the dosimetric benefits of margin reduction, its potential to extend SABR to more NSCLC patients and the factors influencing plan acceptability. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included 61 patients (stage IA–IIIA) treated with conventional radiotherapy. Patients were ineligible for SABR due to tumour size or proximity to organs at risk (OAR). Using Pinnacle auto‐planning, three SABR plans were generated for each patient: a regular planning target volume margin plan, a reduced margin plan (gross tumour volume GTV+3 mm) and a non‐margin plan. Targets were planned to 48Gy/4 or 50Gy/5 fractions depending on location. Plans were compared in terms of target coverage, OAR doses and dosimetric acceptability based on local guidelines. Predictors of acceptability were investigated using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Compared to regular margin plans, both reduced margin and non‐margin plans resulted in significant reductions to almost all dose constraints. Dose conformity was significantly worse in non‐margin plans (P < 0.05) and strongly correlated with targets’ surface area/volume ratio (R (2 )= 0.9, P < 0.05). 26% of reduced margin plans were acceptable, compared to 54% of non‐margin plans. GTV overlap with OARs significantly affected plan acceptability (OR 0.008, 95% CI 0.001–0.073). CONCLUSION: Margin reduction significantly reduced OAR doses enabling acceptable plans to be achieved for patients previously excluded from SABR. Indications for lung SABR may broaden as treatment accuracy continues to improve; further work is needed to identify patients most likely to benefit.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8424332
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84243322021-09-13 Can reducing planning safety margins broaden the inclusion criteria for lung stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy? Ghandourh, Wsam Batumalai, Vikneswary Boxer, Miriam Holloway, Lois J Med Radiat Sci Original Articles INTRODUCTION: Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is currently indicated for inoperable, early‐stage non‐small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). Advancements in image‐guidance technology continue to improve treatment precision and enable reductions in planning safety margins. We investigated the dosimetric benefits of margin reduction, its potential to extend SABR to more NSCLC patients and the factors influencing plan acceptability. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included 61 patients (stage IA–IIIA) treated with conventional radiotherapy. Patients were ineligible for SABR due to tumour size or proximity to organs at risk (OAR). Using Pinnacle auto‐planning, three SABR plans were generated for each patient: a regular planning target volume margin plan, a reduced margin plan (gross tumour volume GTV+3 mm) and a non‐margin plan. Targets were planned to 48Gy/4 or 50Gy/5 fractions depending on location. Plans were compared in terms of target coverage, OAR doses and dosimetric acceptability based on local guidelines. Predictors of acceptability were investigated using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Compared to regular margin plans, both reduced margin and non‐margin plans resulted in significant reductions to almost all dose constraints. Dose conformity was significantly worse in non‐margin plans (P < 0.05) and strongly correlated with targets’ surface area/volume ratio (R (2 )= 0.9, P < 0.05). 26% of reduced margin plans were acceptable, compared to 54% of non‐margin plans. GTV overlap with OARs significantly affected plan acceptability (OR 0.008, 95% CI 0.001–0.073). CONCLUSION: Margin reduction significantly reduced OAR doses enabling acceptable plans to be achieved for patients previously excluded from SABR. Indications for lung SABR may broaden as treatment accuracy continues to improve; further work is needed to identify patients most likely to benefit. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-05-02 2021-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8424332/ /pubmed/33934559 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.469 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy and New Zealand Institute of Medical Radiation Technology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Ghandourh, Wsam
Batumalai, Vikneswary
Boxer, Miriam
Holloway, Lois
Can reducing planning safety margins broaden the inclusion criteria for lung stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy?
title Can reducing planning safety margins broaden the inclusion criteria for lung stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy?
title_full Can reducing planning safety margins broaden the inclusion criteria for lung stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy?
title_fullStr Can reducing planning safety margins broaden the inclusion criteria for lung stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy?
title_full_unstemmed Can reducing planning safety margins broaden the inclusion criteria for lung stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy?
title_short Can reducing planning safety margins broaden the inclusion criteria for lung stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy?
title_sort can reducing planning safety margins broaden the inclusion criteria for lung stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy?
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8424332/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33934559
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.469
work_keys_str_mv AT ghandourhwsam canreducingplanningsafetymarginsbroadentheinclusioncriteriaforlungstereotacticablativebodyradiotherapy
AT batumalaivikneswary canreducingplanningsafetymarginsbroadentheinclusioncriteriaforlungstereotacticablativebodyradiotherapy
AT boxermiriam canreducingplanningsafetymarginsbroadentheinclusioncriteriaforlungstereotacticablativebodyradiotherapy
AT hollowaylois canreducingplanningsafetymarginsbroadentheinclusioncriteriaforlungstereotacticablativebodyradiotherapy