Dataset Information

Dosimetric comparison of helical tomotherapy and conventional Linac-based X-knife stereotactic body radiation therapy for primary lung cancer or pulmonary metastases.

ABSTRACT: Background:To compare helical tomotherapy (HT) with X-knife stereotactic body radiation therapy (HT-SBRT/X-SBRT) for primary or metastatic lung cancer regarding planning target volume (PTV) coverage, such as homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI) and dose-volume histogram (DVH) of organs at risk (OARs). Methods:We retrospectively analyzed 21 patients receiving definitive radiation treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or pulmonary metastases at our institution between March 2015 and October 2016. Tumors were irradiated with 4-10 Gy per fraction in 5-15 fractions. Plans were compared according to PTV coverage and OARs sparing. Results:Significant differences between HT and X-knife were observed for both HI (P=0.003) and CI (P<0.001). The V5 (P=0.001), V10 (P=0.009), V20 (P=0.001), the mean lung dose (P=0.005) of total lung and maximum dose of the spinal cord (P=0.010) were significantly lower in the X-SBRT group than the HT-SBRT group. There were no significant differences for the V30 (P=0.075) and the mean heart dose (P=0.584) between the two groups. Conclusions:X-SBRT was dosimetrically superior to HT-SBRT, when applied in these tumors' maximum diameters <5 cm. As HT resulted in increased low-dose volume, it is essential to optimize the patient selection in order to avoid severe radiation pneumonitis in HT-SBRT.

SUBMITTER: Li S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5864687 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Dosimetric comparison of helical tomotherapy and conventional Linac-based X-knife stereotactic body radiation therapy for primary lung cancer or pulmonary metastases.

Li Shuangshuang S Yang Ju J Liu Juan J Gao Shanbao S Liu Baorui B Yan Jing J

Journal of thoracic disease 20180201 2

<h4>Background</h4>To compare helical tomotherapy (HT) with X-knife stereotactic body radiation therapy (HT-SBRT/X-SBRT) for primary or metastatic lung cancer regarding planning target volume (PTV) coverage, such as homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI) and dose-volume histogram (DVH) of organs at risk (OARs).<h4>Methods</h4>We retrospectively analyzed 21 patients receiving definitive radiation treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or pulmonary metastases at our institution be ...[more]

PMID: 29607173

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo compare the dosimetric profiles of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans using the fast-rotating O-ring linac (the Halcyon system) based on a dual-layer stacked multi-leaf collimator and helical tomotherapy (HT) for nasopharyngeal cancer (NPCa).MethodsFor 30 NPCa patients, three sets of RT plans were generated, under the same policy of contouring and dose constraints: HT plan; Halcyon VMAT plan with two arcs (HL2arc); and Halcyon VMAT plan with four arcs (HL4arc), respectively. The intended dose schedule was to deliver 67.2 Gy to the planning gross target volume (P-GTV) and 56.0 Gy to the planning clinical target volume (P-CTV) in 28 fractions using the simultaneously integrated boost concept. Target volumes and organ at risks dose metrics were evaluated for all plans. Normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) for esophagus, parotid glands, spinal cord, and brain stem were compared.ResultsThe HT plan achieved the best dose homogeneity index for both P_GTV and P_CTV, followed by the HL4arc and L2arc plans. No significant difference in the dose conformity index (CI) for P_GTV was observed between the HT plan (0.80) and either the HL2arc plan (0.79) or the HL4arc plan (0.83). The HL4arc plan showed the best CI for P_CTV (0.88), followed by the HL2arc plan (0.83) and the HT plan (0.80). The HL4arc plan (median, interquartile rage (Q1, Q3): 25.36 (22.22, 26.89) Gy) showed the lowest Dmean in the parotid glands, followed by the HT (25.88 (23.87, 27.87) Gy) and HL2arc plans (28.00 (23.24, 33.99) Gy). In the oral cavity (OC) dose comparison, the HT (22.03 (19.79, 24.85) Gy) plan showed the lowest Dmean compared to the HL2arc (23.96 (20.84, 28.02) Gy) and HL4arc (24.14 (20.17, 27.53) Gy) plans. Intermediate and low dose regions (40-65% of the prescribed dose) were well fit to the target volume in HL4arc, compared to the HT and HL2arc plans. All plans met the dose constraints for the other OARs with sufficient dose margins. The between-group differences in the median NTCP values for the parotid glands and OC were < 3.47% and < 1.7% points, respectively.ConclusionsThe dosimetric profiles of Halcyon VMAT plans were comparable to that of HT, and HL4arc showed better dosimetric profiles than HL2arc for NPCa.

Project description:PurposeAdaptive stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer (PC) by the 1.5 T MR-linac currently requires online planning by an expert user. A fully automated and user-independent solution to adaptive planning (mCycle) of PC-SBRT was compared with user's plans for the 1.5 T MR-linac.Methods and materialsFifty adapted plans on daily magnetic resonance imaging scans for 10 patients with PC treated by 35 Gy (prescription dose [Dp]) in 5 fractions were reoptimized offline from scratch, both by an expert planner (manual) and by mCycle. Manual plans consisted of multicriterial optimization (MCO) of the fluence map plus manual tweaking in segmentation, whereas in mCycle plans, the objectives were sequentially optimized by MCO according to an a-priori assigned priority list. The main criteria for planning approval were a dose ≥95% of the Dp to at least 95% of the planning target volume (PTV), V33.2 (PTV) ≥ 95%, a dose less than the Dp to the hottest cubic centimeter (V35 ≤ 1 cm3) of rectum, bladder, penile bulb, and urethral planning risk volume (ie, urethra plus 3 mm isotropically), and V32 ≤ 5%, V28 ≤ 10%, and V18 ≤ 35% to the rectum. Such dose-volume metrics, plus some efficiency and deliverability metrics, were used for the comparison of mCycle versus manual plans.ResultsmCycle plans improved target dose coverage, with V33.2 (PTV) passing on average (±1 SD) from 95.7% (±1.0%) for manual plans to 97.5% (±1.3%) for mCycle plans (P < .001), and rectal dose sparing, with significantly reduced V32, V28, and V18 (P ≤ .004). Although at an equivalent number of segments, mCycle plans consumed moderately more monitor units (+17%) and delivery time (+9%) (P < .001), whereas they were generally faster (-19%) in terms of optimization times (P < .019). No significant differences were found for the passing rates of locally normalized γ (3 mm, 3%) (P = .059) and γ (2 mm, 2%) (P = .432) deliverability metrics.ConclusionsIn the offline setting, mCycle proved to be a trustable solution for automated planning of PC-SBRT on the 1.5 T MR-linac. mCycle integration in the online workflow will free the user from the challenging online-optimization task.

Project description:BackgroundProstate cancer rates have been steadily increasing in recent years. As high-precision radiation therapy methods, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and carbon-ion radiation therapy (CIRT) have unique advantages. Analyzing the dosimetric differences between SBRT and CIRT in the treatment of localized prostate cancer can help provide patients with more accurate, individualized treatment plans.MethodsWe selected computed tomography positioning images and the contours of target volumes of 16 patients with localized prostate cancer who received radiotherapy. We delineated the organs at risk (OARs) on the CyberKnife (CK) treatment planning system (TPS) MultiPlan4.0, which were imported into the CIRT uniform scanning TPS HIMM-1 ci-Plan. Two treatment plans, SBRT and CIRT, were designed for the same patient, and we used SPSS 22.0 for the statistical analysis of data.ResultsBoth SBRT and CIRT plans met the prescribed dose requirements. In terms of target volume exposure dose, D2 (P<0.001), D5 (P<0.001), D50 (P<0.001), D90 (P=0.029), D95 (P<0.001), D98 (P<0.001), and Dmean (P<0.001) under SBRT were significantly higher than those under CIRT; the conformity index (CI) under SBRT was significantly better than that under CIRT (P<0.001); the target volume coverage rate (V95%) and dose homogeneity index (HI) under CIRT were significantly better than those under SBRT (P<0.001). In terms of OAR exposure dosage, the Dmax of the bladder and rectum under SBRT was significantly lower than that under CIRT (P<0.001), but Dmean was in the other direction; the exposure dose of the intestinal tract under CIRT was significantly lower than that under SBRT (P<0.05); Dmax of the femoral head under CIRT was significantly lower than that under SBRT (P<0.05), and there was no statistical difference between them at other doses.ConclusionsIn this study, we found that when CIRT was used for treating localized prostate cancer, the dose distribution in target volume was more homogeneous and the coverage rate was higher; the average dose of OARs was lower. SBRT had a better CI and higher dose in target volume; the dose hotspot was lower in OARs. It is important to comprehensively consider the dose relationship between local tumor and surrounding tissues when selecting treatment plans.

Dataset Information

Dosimetric comparison of helical tomotherapy and conventional Linac-based X-knife stereotactic body radiation therapy for primary lung cancer or pulmonary metastases.

Publications

Dosimetric comparison of helical tomotherapy and conventional Linac-based X-knife stereotactic body radiation therapy for primary lung cancer or pulmonary metastases.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets