Dataset Information

Dosimetric comparison of preoperative single‐fraction partial breast radiotherapy techniques: 3D CRT, noncoplanar IMRT, coplanar IMRT, and VMAT.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to compare dosimetric parameters of treatment plans among four techniques for preoperative single‐fraction partial breast radiotherapy in order to select an optimal treatment technique. The techniques evaluated were noncoplanar 3D conformal radiation therapy (3D CRT), noncoplanar intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRTNC), coplanar IMRT (IMRTCO), and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The planning CT scans of 16 patients in the prone position were used in this study, with the single‐fraction prescription doses of 15 Gy for the first eight patients and 18 Gy for the remaining eight patients. Six (6) MV photon beams were designed to avoid the heart and contralateral breast. Optimization for IMRT and VMAT was performed to reduce the dose to the skin and normal breast. All plans were normalized such that 100% of the prescribed dose covered greater than 95% of the clinical target volume (CTV) consisting of gross tumor volume (GTV) plus 1.5 cm margin. Mean homogeneity index (HI) was the lowest (1.05±0.02) for 3D CRT and the highest (1.11±0.04) for VMAT. Mean conformity index (CI) was the lowest (1.42±0.32) for IMRTNC and the highest (1.60±0.32) for VMAT. Mean of the maximum point dose to skin was the lowest (73.7±11.5%) for IMRTNC and the highest (86.5±6.68%) for 3D CRT. IMRTCO showed very similar HI, CI, and maximum skin dose to IMRTNC (differences<1%). The estimated mean treatment delivery time, excluding the time spent for patient positioning and imaging, was 7.0±1.0,8.3±1.1,9.7±1.0, and 11.0±1.5min for VMAT,IMRTCO,IMRTNC and 3D CRT, respectively. In comparison of all four techniques for preoperative single‐fraction partial breast radiotherapy, we can conclude that noncoplanar or coplanar IMRT were optimal in this study as IMRT plans provided homogeneous and conformal target coverage, skin sparing, and relatively short treatment delivery time.PACS numbers: 81.40.Wx, 87.55.D‐

SUBMITTER: Yoo S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5689969 | biostudies-other | 2015 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo evaluate the possible advantages of a simple spinal cord (SC) dose-limiting three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) technique in comparison to conventional two-dimensional (2D) techniques and other 3D-CRT techniques for spinal bone irradiation.MethodsFor 41 spinal target volumes, seven different techniques were evaluated, using a standard schedule of 30 Gy in 10 fractions. The SC dose-limiting 3D-CRT technique 1F2S-18MV using a single posterior field (F) supplemented by two anterior segment fields (S) and 18-MV photon beams was compared to two conventional 2D techniques (a single posterior field, PA, and two opposed anterior-posterior fields, APPA), three other 3D-CRT techniques (a single posterior field supplemented by four segment fields, 1F4S; two wedged fields, WD, and the SC dose-limiting variant using 6 MV, 1F2S-6MV) along with the original clinically applied plans.Results1F2S-18MV demonstrated notably better results for all target volume parameters compared to the conventional 2D techniques (p < 0.001). Limitation of the SC dose was significantly superior with 1F2S-18MV in comparison to PA and APPA (SC Dmean: 28.9 ± 0.4 vs. 30.1 ± 0.6 Gy and 30.1 ± 0.4 Gy; SC Dmax: 30.9 ± 0.7 vs. 32.5 ± 1.0 Gy and 31.8 ± 0.7 Gy; SC D1cm3 : 30.1 ± 0.6 vs. 31.7 ± 0.9 Gy and 31.1 ± 0.6 Gy; p < 0.001). Likewise, lower mean SC doses with 1F2S-18MV were observed in comparison to the more treatment time-consuming 3D-CRT techniques (1F4S, WD) and the original plans without relevant compromises on the dose homogeneity in the target volume and the dose exposure to the other OARs.ConclusionIn treatment planning of spinal metastases, simple variants of 3D-CRT-techniques like 1F2S-18MV can offer a significant dose limitation to the SC while providing a sufficient dose coverage of the target volume. Especially in patients with favorable life expectancy and potential need for re-irradiation, such SC dose-limiting 3D-CRT techniques may be a reasonable approach.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) was found effective in treating laryngeal cancer with only five treatment fractions by a recent clinical trial (NCT01984502, ClinicalTrials.gov). Nevertheless, this trial used the Cyberknife system, which is not widely accessible enough to benefit all patients affected by laryngeal cancer. Our study investigates the feasibility of larynx SBRT treatment planning on a conventional gantry-based LINAC and compares its plan quality with that from the Cyberknife. MATERIALS & METHODS:Ten larynx SBRT cases were originally treated by Cyberknife using fixed cones in our institution, with plans created and optimized using the Monte-Carlo algorithm in the MultiPlan treatment planning system. These cases were retrospectively planned in the Eclipse planning system for a LINAC with the same prescription dose. We used volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for larynx SBRT planning in Eclipse and incorporated non-coplanar arcs to approach the Cyberknife's large solid angle delivery space. We used both anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm for dose calculation and compared their accuracy by measurements on an in-house larynx phantom. We compared the LINAC VMAT plans (VMAT-AAA and VMAT-AXB) with the original Cyberknife plans using dosimetric endpoints such as the conformity index, gradient indices (R50, R20), OAR maximum/mean doses, and the monitor units. RESULTS:Phantom measurement showed that both the AAA and the AXB algorithms provided adequate dose calculation accuracy (94.7% gamma pass rate on 2%/2 mm criteria for AAA vs. 97.3% for AXB), though AXB provided better accuracy in the air cavity. The LINAC-based VMAT plans achieved similar dosimetric endpoints as the Cyberknife planning, and all plans met the larynx SBRT dosimetric constraints. Cyberknife plans achieved an average conformity index of 1.13, compared to 1.20 of VMAT-AXB and 1.19 of VMAT-AAA. The VMAT plans spared the thyroid gland better with average Dmean of 2.4 Gy (VMAT-AXB) and 2.7 Gy (VMAT-AAA), as compared to 4.3 Gy for Cyberknife plans. The VMAT-AAA plans had a slightly lower contralateral arytenoid Dmax (average: 15.2 Gy) than Cyberknife plans (average: 17.9 Gy) with statistical significance, while the contralateral arytenoid Dmax was similar between VMAT-AXB and Cyberknife plans with no statistically significant difference. Cyberknife plans offered slightly better R50 (average: 5.0) than VMAT-AXB (5.9) and VMAT-AAA (5.7) plans. The VMAT plans substantially reduced the plan MUs to less than 1/3 of the Cyberknife plans, and the differences were statistically significant. The other metrics were similar between VMAT and Cyberknife plans with no statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS:Gantry-based LINACs can achieve similar plan quality to Cyberknife systems. Treatment outcome with both methods remains to be investigated.

Dataset Information

Dosimetric comparison of preoperative single‐fraction partial breast radiotherapy techniques: 3D CRT, noncoplanar IMRT, coplanar IMRT, and VMAT.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets