Comparison of combinations of irradiation techniques and jaw conditions in intensity-modulated radiotherapy for lung cancer

Single isocenter versus dual isocenter treatment using flattening filter-free and jaw-tracking volumetrically modulated arc therapy for boot-shaped lung cancer: Evaluation of dosimetric and feasibility

BACKGROUND

To determine whether a dual-isocenter volumetrically modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique results in lower normal pulmonary dosage compared to a traditional single isocenter technique for boot-shaped lung cancer.

METHODS

A cohort of 15 patients with advanced peripheral or central lung cancer who had metastases in the mediastinum and supraclavicular lymph nodes was randomly selected for this retrospective study. VMAT plans were generated for each patient using two different beam alignment techniques with the 6-MV flattening filter-free (FFF) photon beam: single-isocenter jaw-tracking VMAT based on the Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator (S-TV), and dual-isocenter VMAT based on both TrueBeam (D-TV) and Halcyon linear accelerator (D-HV). For all 45 treatment plans, planning target volume (PTV) dose coverage, conformity/homogeneity index (CI/HI), mean heart dose (MHD), mean lung dose (MLD) and the total lung tissue receiving 5, 20, 30 Gy (V5, V20, V30) were evaluated. The monitor units (MUs), delivery time, and plan quality assurance (QA) results were recorded.

RESULTS

The quality of the objectives of the three plans was comparable to each other. In comparison with S-TV, D-TV and D-HV improved the CI and HI of the PTV (p < 0.05). The MLD was 13.84 ± 1.44 Gy (mean ± SD) for D-TV, 14.22 ± 1.30 Gy and 14.16 ± 1.42 Gy for S-TV and D-HV, respectively. Lungs-V5Gy was 50.78 ± 6.24%, 52.00 ± 7.32% and 53.36 ± 8.48%, Lungs-V20Gy was 23.72 ± 2.27%, 26.18 ± 2.86% and 24.96 ± 3.09%, Lungs-V30Gy was 15.69 ± 1.76%, 17.20 ± 1.72% and 16.52 ± 2.07%. Compared to S-TV, D-TV provided statistically significant better protection for the total lung, with the exception of the lungs-V5. All plans passed QA according the gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

Taking into account the dosimetric results and published clinical data on radiation-induced pulmonary injury, dual-isocenter jaw-tracking VMAT may be the optimal choice for treating boot-shaped lung cancer.

Plan quality and treatment efficiency assurance of two VMAT optimization for cervical cancer radiotherapy

To investigate the difference of the fluence map optimization (FMO) and Stochastic platform optimization (SPO) algorithm in a newly-introduced treatment planning system (TPS).

METHODS

34 cervical cancer patients with definitive radiation were retrospectively analyzed. Each patient has four plans: FMO with fixed jaw plans (FMO-FJ) and no fixed jaw plans (FMO-NFJ); SPO with fixed jaw plans (SPO-FJ) and no fixed jaw plans (SPO-NFJ). Dosimetric parameters, Modulation Complexity Score (MCS), Gamma Pass Rate (GPR) and delivery time were analyzed among the four plans.

RESULTS

For target coverage, SPO-FJ plans are the best ones (P ≤ 0.00). FMO plans are better than SPO-NFJ plans (P ≤ 0.00). For OARs sparing, SPO-FJ plans are better than FMO plans for mostly OARs (P ≤ 0.04). Additionally, SPO-FJ plans are better than SPO-NFJ plans (P ≤ 0.02), except for rectum V45Gy. Compared to SPO-NFJ plans, the FMO plans delivered less dose to bladder, rectum, colon V40Gy and pelvic bone V40Gy (P ≤ 0.04). Meanwhile, the SPO-NFJ plans showed superiority in MU, delivery time, MCS and GPR in all plans. In terms of delivery time and MCS, the SPO-FJ plans are better than FMO plans. FMO-FJ plans are better than FMO-NFJ plans in delivery efficiency. MCSs are strongly correlated with PCTV length, which are negatively with PCTV length (P ≤ 0.03). The delivery time and MUs of the four plans are strongly correlated (P ≤ 0.02). Comparing plans with fixed or no fixed jaw in two algorithms, no difference was found in FMO plans in target coverage and minor difference in Kidney_L Dmean, Mu and delivery time between PCTV width≤15.5 cm group and >15.5 cm group. For SPO plans, SPO-FJ plans showed more superiority in target coverage and OARs sparing than the SPO-NFJ plans in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SPO-FJ plans showed superiority in target coverage and OARs sparing, as well as higher delivery efficiency in the four plans.

Comparison of combinations of irradiation techniques and jaw conditions in intensity-modulated radiotherapy for lung cancer

Purpose

To assist in the selection of a suitable combination of an irradiation technique and jaw condition in intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) for lung cancer treatment plans.

Materials and methods

Thirty patients with lung cancer who underwent radiotherapy were enrolled retrospectively. They were categorized as having central lung cancer, peripheral lung cancer with mediastinal lymph node metastasis (peripheral E lung cancer), and peripheral lung cancer without mediastinal lymph node metastasis (peripheral N lung cancer). Four treatment plans were designed for each patient: fixed jaw and adaptive jaw IMRT technique (FJ‐IMRT and JA‐IMRT), and fixed jaw and jaw tracking VMAT technique (FJ‐VMAT and JT‐VMAT). The dose parameters of the four group plans were compared and analyzed.

Results

Compared to FJ‐IMRT, JA‐IMRT significantly reduced the mean dose (D_mean) and volume percentage of 5 Gy (V_5Gy) of the total lung in central and peripheral N lung cancer. Similarly, compared to FJ‐VMAT, JT‐VMAT provided better protection to most organs at risk (OARs), particularly for total lung and heart. In comparison with IMRT, VMAT significantly improved the conformity index (CI) of the planning target volume for the three lung cancer classifications, and it reduced the dose of almost all OARs except V_5Gy and D_mean of the total lung. Moreover, the mean monitor units of the VMAT groups were far lower than the IMRT groups.

Conclusion

Based on the dosimetric findings and considering clinical data published on lung and heart side effects, we propose recommendations on the preferred treatment technique based on tumor location and pulmonary function. For central lung cancer with normal pulmonary function, we advise JT‐VMAT techniques. Conversely, for central lung cancer with poor pulmonary function, we recommend JA‐IMRT techniques. We advocate JA‐IMRT for peripheral E lung cancer. For peripheral N lung cancer, JT‐VMAT techniques are strongly recommended.