22 research outputs found

    Optimization of extracranial stereotactic radiation therapy of small lung lesions using accurate dose calculation algorithms

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare and to validate different dose calculation algorithms for the use in radiation therapy of small lung lesions and to optimize the treatment planning using accurate dose calculation algorithms. METHODS: A 9-field conformal treatment plan was generated on an inhomogeneous phantom with lung mimics and a soft tissue equivalent insert, mimicking a lung tumor. The dose distribution was calculated with the Pencil Beam and Collapsed Cone algorithms implemented in Masterplan (Nucletron) and the Monte Carlo system XVMC and validated using Gafchromic EBT films. Differences in dose distribution were evaluated. The plans were then optimized by adding segments to the outer shell of the target in order to increase the dose near the interface to the lung. RESULTS: The Pencil Beam algorithm overestimated the dose by up to 15% compared to the measurements. Collapsed Cone and Monte Carlo predicted the dose more accurately with a maximum difference of -8% and -3% respectively compared to the film. Plan optimization by adding small segments to the peripheral parts of the target, creating a 2-step fluence modulation, allowed to increase target coverage and homogeneity as compared to the uncorrected 9 field plan. CONCLUSION: The use of forward 2-step fluence modulation in radiotherapy of small lung lesions allows the improvement of tumor coverage and dose homogeneity as compared to non-modulated treatment plans and may thus help to increase the local tumor control probability. While the Collapsed Cone algorithm is closer to measurements than the Pencil Beam algorithm, both algorithms are limited at tissue/lung interfaces, leaving Monte-Carlo the most accurate algorithm for dose prediction

    Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) vs. 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC): dosimetric comparison and clinical implications

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Purpose</p> <p>To compare target dose distribution, comformality, normal tissue avoidance, and irradiated body volume (IBV) in 3DCRT using classic anatomical landmarks (c3DCRT), 3DCRT fitting the PTV (f3DCRT), and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC).</p> <p>Materials and methods</p> <p>Fifteen patients with LARC underwent c3DCRT, f3DCRT, and IMRT planning. Target definition followed the recommendations of the ICRU reports No. 50 and 62. OAR (SB and bladder) constraints were D5 ≀ 50 Gy and Dmax < 55 Gy. PTV dose prescription was defined as PTV95 ≄ 45 Gy and PTVmin ≄ 35 Gy. Target coverage was evaluated with the D95, Dmin, and Dmax. Target dose distribution and comformality was evaluated with the homogeneity indices (HI) and Conformity Index (CI). Normal tissue avoidance of OAR was evaluated with the D5 and V40. IBV at 5 Gy (V5), 10 Gy (V10), and 20 Gy (V20) were calculated.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The mean GTV95, CTV95, and PTV95 doses were significantly lower for IMRT plans. Target dose distribution was more inhomogeneous after IMRT planning and 3DCRTplans had significantly lower CI. The V40 and D5 values for OAR were significantly reduced in the IMRT plans .V5 was greater for IMRT than for f3DCRT planning (p < 0.05) and V20 was smaller for IMRT plans(p < 0.05).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>IMRT planning improves target conformity and decreases irradiation of the OAR at the expense of increased target heterogeneity. IMRT planning increases the IBV at 5 Gy or less but decreases the IBV at 20 Gy or more.</p

    Exceptionally high incidence of symptomatic grade 2–5 radiation pneumonitis after stereotactic radiation therapy for lung tumors

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To determine the usefulness of dose volume histogram (DVH) factors for predicting the occurrence of radiation pneumonitis (RP) after application of stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) for lung tumors, DVH factors were measured before irradiation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>From May 2004 to April 2006, 25 patients were treated with SRT at the University of Tokyo Hospital. Eighteen patients had primary lung cancer and seven had metastatic lung cancer. SRT was given in 6–7 fields with an isocenter dose of 48 Gy in four fractions over 5–8 days by linear accelerator.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Seven of the 25 patients suffered from RP of symptomatic grade 2–5 according to the NCI-CTC version 3.0. The overall incidence rate of RP grade2 or more was 29% at 18 months after completing SRT and three patients died from RP. RP occurred at significantly increased frequencies in patients with higher conformity index (CI) (p = 0.0394). Mean lung dose (MLD) showed a significant correlation with V<sub>5</sub>–V<sub>20 </sub>(irradiated lung volume) (p < 0.001) but showed no correlation with CI. RP did not statistically correlate with MLD. MLD had the strongest correlation with V<sub>5</sub>.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Even in SRT, when large volumes of lung parenchyma are irradiated to such high doses as the minimum dose within planning target volume, the incidence of lung toxicity can become high.</p

    SU‐E‐T‐809 : A Grading‐Study Based Tool to Assist in the Choice of Treatment Modality

    No full text
    Purpose: It is common for radiation oncologists (ROs) today to have a mixed arsenal of radiotherapy treatment modalities at their disposal. To optimize a clinic's use of its different treatment modalities, while at the same time giving every patient an optimal treatment, is not a trivial task. The purpose of this study was to give ROs a tool to choose between available modalities. This would help to ensure that the most advanced modality is available for the patients that really benefits from this treatment, and allow for a more optimal use of the clinic's assets. This study included different modalities such as 3DCRT, step‐and‐shoot IMRT, and helical tomotherapy. Methods: Twenty‐three patients that had received treatment for tumours in different anatomical regions with the tomotherapy system were chosen. All tomotherapy plans were converted into seven‐beam step‐ and‐shoot IMRT plans using the treatment planning system SharePlan. When feasible, conventional 3DCRT plans were also created by our most experienced planner. A side‐by‐side demonstration of every patient's plans was performed. Ten experienced ROs were individually asked to compare and grade the plans. The results were statistically analysed by using Sign test. Results: The results show that for all regions combined, the TT plans were considered somewhat better than the IMRT plans and much better than the 3DCRT plans (p<0.05). Divided into the different anatomical regions, however, the perceived superiority of the TT plans, as compared to step‐and‐shoot IMRT, was only significant for the patients treated in the abdominal and pelvic region. Conclusions: Based on the ROs grading scores obtained in the present study, priority for treatment with the TT system should be given to patients with tumours in the abdominal and pelvic region. Other factors, such as the overall treatment time and the machine occupancy, may also be important for the final choice of treatment

    IMRT treatment planning - A comparative inter-system and intor-centre planning exercise of the ESTRO QUASIMODO group

    No full text
    Background and purpose: The purpose of this work was a comparison of realistic IMRT plans based on the same CT-image data set and a common predefined set of dose objectives for the planning target volume and the organs at risk. This work was part of the larger European QUASIMODO IMRT verification project. Materials and methods: Eleven IMRT. plans were produced by nine different European groups, each applying a representative set of. clinically used IMRT treatment planning systems. The plans produced were to be deliverable in a clinically acceptable treatment time with the local technical equipment. All plans were characterized using a set of different quality measures such as dose-volume histograms, number of monitor units and treatment time. Results: Only one plan was able to fulfil all dose objectives strictly; six plans failed some of the objectives but were still considered to be clinically acceptable; four plans were not able to reach the objectives. Additional quality scores such as the number of monitor units and treatment time showed large variations, which mainly depend on the delivery technique. Conclusion: The presented planning study showed that with nearly all presently available IMRT planning and delivery systems comparable dose distributions could be achieved if the planning goals are clearly defined in advance