Dataset Information

Influence of target dose heterogeneity on dose sparing of normal tissue in peripheral lung tumor stereotactic body radiation therapy.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the influence of target dose heterogeneity on normal tissue dose sparing for peripheral lung tumor stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT).

Methods

Based on the volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique, three SBRT plans with homogeneous, moderate heterogeneous, and heterogeneous (HO, MHE, and HE) target doses were compared in 30 peripheral lung tumor patients. The prescription dose was 48 Gy in 4 fractions. Ten rings outside the PTV were created to limit normal tissue dosage and evaluate dose falloff.

Results

When MHE and HE plans were compared to HO plans, the conformity index of the PTV was increased by approximately 0.08. The median mean lung dose (MLD), V₅, V₁₀, V₂₀ of whole lung, D_2%, D_1cc, D_2cc of the rib, V₃₀ of the rib, D_2% and the maximum dose (D_max) of the skin, and D_2% and D_max of most mediastinal organs at risk (OARs) and spinal cord were reduced by up to 4.51 Gy or 2.8%. Analogously, the median D_max, D_2% and mean dose of rings were reduced by 0.71 to 8.46 Gy; and the median R_50% and D_2cm were reduced by 2.1 to 2.3 and 7.4% to 8.0%, respectively. Between MHE and HE plans there was little to no difference in OARs dose and dose falloff beyond the target. Furthermore, the dose sparing of rib V₃₀ and the mean dose of rings were negatively correlated with the rib and rings distance from tumor, respectively.

Conclusions

For peripheral lung tumor SBRT, target conformity, normal tissue dose, and dose falloff around the target could be improved by loosening or abandoning homogeneity. While there was negligible further dose benefit for the maximum target dose above 125% of the prescription, dose sparing of normal tissue derived from a heterogeneous target decreased as the distance from the tumor increased.

SUBMITTER: Wei Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8404286 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeRadiation-induced lymphopenia (RIL) is associated with inferior survival in patients with glioblastoma, lung cancer, and pancreatic cancer. We asked whether stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) decreases severity of RIL compared to conventional chemoradiation therapy (CRT) in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC).Methods and materialsSerial total lymphocyte counts (TLCs) from patients enrolled in a prospective trial of SBRT for LAPC were compared to TLCs from an existing database of LAPC patients undergoing definitive CRT. SBRT patients received 33 Gy (6.6 Gy × 5 fractions). CRT patients received a median dose of 50.4 Gy (1.8 Gy × 28 fractions) with concurrent 5-fluorouracil (77%) or gemcitabine (23%) therapy. Univariate and multivariate analyses (MVA) were used to identify associations between clinical factors and post-treatment TLC and between TLC and survival.ResultsThirty-two patients received SBRT and 101 received CRT. Median planning target volume (PTV) was smaller in SBRT (88.7 cm(3)) than in CRT (344.6 cm(3); P<.001); median tumor diameter was larger for SBRT (4.6 cm) than for CRT (3.6 cm; P=.01). SBRT and CRT groups had similar median baseline TLCs. One month after starting radiation, 71.7% of CRT patients had severe lymphopenia (ie, TLC <500 cells/mm(3) vs 13.8% of SBRT patients; P<.001). At 2 months, 46.0% of CRT patients remained severely lymphopenic compared with 13.6% of SBRT patients (P=.007). MVA demonstrated that treatment technique and baseline TLCs were significantly associated with post-treatment TLC at 1 but not 2 months after treatment. Higher post-treatment TLC was associated with improved survival regardless of treatment technique (hazard ratio [HR] for death: 2.059; 95% confidence interval: 1.310-3.237; P=.002).ConclusionsSBRT is associated with significantly less severe RIL than CRT at 1 month in LAPC, suggesting that radiation technique affects RIL and supporting previous modeling studies. Given the association of severe RIL with survival in LAPC, further study of the effect of radiation technique on immune status is warranted.

Project description:PurposeTo our knowledge it is unknown whether stereotactic body radiation therapy of prostate cancer is a substitute for other radiation treatments or surgery, or for expanding the pool of patients who undergo treatment instead of active surveillance.Materials and methodsUsing SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results)-Medicare we identified men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2007 and 2011. We developed physician-hospital networks by identifying the treating physician of each patient based on the primary treatment received and subsequently assigning each physician to a hospital. We examined the relative distribution of prostate cancer treatments stratified by whether stereotactic body radiation therapy was performed in a network by fitting logistic regression models with robust SEs to account for patient clustering in networks.ResultsWe identified 344 physician-hospital networks, including 30 (8.7%) and 314 (91.3%) in which stereotactic body radiation therapy was and was not performed, respectively. Networks in which that therapy was and was not done did not differ with time in the performance of robotic and radical prostatectomy, and active surveillance (all p >0.05). The relationship with intensity modulated radiation therapy did not show any consistent temporal pattern. In networks in which it was performed less intensity modulated radiation therapy was initially done but there were similar rates in later years. Brachytherapy trends differed among networks in which stereotactic body radiation therapy was vs was not performed with a lower brachytherapy rate in networks in which stereotactic body radiation therapy was done (p=0.03).ConclusionsSurgery and active surveillance rates did not differ in networks in which stereotactic body radiation therapy was vs was not performed but when that therapy was done there was a lower brachytherapy rate. Stereotactic body radiation therapy may represent more of an alternative to brachytherapy than to active surveillance.

Project description:Purpose Research suggests that in addition to the dose-rate, a dose threshold is also important for the reduction in normal tissue toxicity with similar tumor control after ultrahigh dose-rate radiation therapy (UHDR-RT). In this analysis we aimed to identify factors that might limit the ability to achieve this “FLASH”-effect in a scenario attractive for UHDR-RT (high fractional beam dose, small target, few organs-at-risk): single-fraction 34 Gy lung stereotactic body radiation therapy. Methods and Materials Clinical volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans, intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans and transmission beam (TB) plans were compared for 6 small and 1 large lung lesion. The TB-plan dose-rate was calculated using 4 methods and the FLASH-percentage (percentage of dose delivered at dose-rates ≥40/100 Gy/s and ≥4/8 Gy) was determined for various variables: a minimum spot time (minST) of 0.5/2 ms, maximum nozzle current (maxN) of 200/40 0nA, and 2 gantry current (GC) techniques (energy-layer based, spot-based [SB]). Results Based on absolute doses 5-beam TB and VMAT-plans are similar, but TB-plans have higher rib, skin, and ipsilateral lung dose than IMPT. Dose-rate calculation methods not considering scanning achieve FLASH-percentages between ∼30% to 80%, while methods considering scanning often achieve <30%. FLASH-percentages increase for lower minST/higher maxN and when using SB GC instead of energy-layer based GC, often approaching the percentage of dose exceeding the dose-threshold. For the small lesions average beam irradiation times (including scanning) varied between 0.06 to 0.31 seconds and total irradiation times between 0.28 to 1.57 seconds, for the large lesion beam times were between 0.16 to 1.47 seconds with total irradiation times of 1.09 to 5.89 seconds. Conclusions In a theoretically advantageous scenario for FLASH we found that TB-plan dosimetry was similar to that of VMAT, but inferior to that of IMPT, and that decreasing minST or using SB GC increase the estimated amount of FLASH. For the appropriate machine/delivery parameters high enough dose-rates can be achieved regardless of calculation method, meaning that a possible FLASH dose-threshold will likely be the primary limiting factor.