1
|
Gill A, Hirst AL, Rowshanfarzad P, Gill S, Bucknell N, Dass J, Sabet M. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for early-stage lung cancer: a systematic review on the choice of photon energy and linac flattened/unflattened beams. Radiat Oncol 2024; 19:1. [PMID: 38167095 PMCID: PMC10762943 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-023-02392-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/05/2023] [Accepted: 12/15/2023] [Indexed: 01/05/2024] Open
Abstract
SBRT is an effective local treatment for patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This treatment is currently used in patients who have poor lung function or who decline surgery. As SBRT usually has small PTV margins, reducing the beam-on-time (BOT) is beneficial for accurate dose delivery by minimising intrafraction motion as well as improved patient comfort. Removal of the linear accelerator flattening filter can provide a higher dose rate which results in a faster treatment. In addition, the choice of photon energy can also affect the dose distribution to the target and the organs-at-risk (OAR). In this systematic review, studies analysing the choice of various photon beam energies, with a flattening filter or flattening filter free (FFF), were compared for their overall dosimetric benefit in the SBRT treatment for early-stage NSCLC. It was found that FFF treatment delivers a comparatively more conformal dose distribution, as well as a better homogeneity index and conformity index, and typically reduces BOT by between 30 and 50%. The trade-off may be a minor increase in monitor units for FFF treatment found in some studies but not others. Target conformity and OAR sparing, particularly lung doses appear better with 6MV FFF, but 10MV FFF was marginally more advantageous for skin sparing and BOT reduction. The favourable beam modality for clinical use would depend on the individual case, for which tumour size and depth, radiotherapy technique, as well as fractionation scheme need to be taken into account.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ashlesha Gill
- School of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia.
| | - Andrew L Hirst
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, 6009, Australia
| | - Pejman Rowshanfarzad
- School of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia
| | - Suki Gill
- School of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, 6009, Australia
| | - Nicholas Bucknell
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, 6009, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia
| | - Joshua Dass
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, 6009, Australia
| | - Mahsheed Sabet
- School of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, 6009, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Hardcastle N, Gaudreault M, Yeo AU, Ungureanu E, Markham C, Barnes R, Chander S, Chu J. Selection of motion management in liver stereotactic body radiotherapy and its impact on treatment time. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2023; 25:100407. [PMID: 36655214 PMCID: PMC9841271 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2022.12.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2022] [Revised: 11/30/2022] [Accepted: 12/22/2022] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Background and purpose Reduction of respiratory tumour motion is important in liver stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to reduce side effects and improve tumour control probability. We have assessed the distribution of use of voluntary exhale breath hold (EBH), abdominal compression (AC), free breathing gating (gating) and free breathing (FB), and the impact of these on treatment time. Materials and Methods We assessed all patients treated in a single institution with liver SBRT between September 2017 and September 2021. Data from pre-simulation motion management assessment using fluoroscopic assessment of liver dome position in repeat breath holds, and motion with and without AC, was reviewed to determine liver dome position consistency in EBH and the impact of AC on motion. Treatment time was assessed for all fractions as time from first image acquisition to last treatment beam off. Results Of 136 patients treated with 145 courses of liver SBRT, 68 % were treated in EBH, 20 % with AC, 7 % in gating and 5 % in FB. AC resulted in motion reduction < 1 mm in 9/26 patients assessed. Median treatment time was higher using EBH (39 min) or gating (42 min) compared with AC (30 min) or FB (24 min) treatments. Conclusions Motion management in liver SBRT needs to be assessed per-patient to ensure appropriate techniques are applied. Motion management significantly impacts treatment time therefore patient comfort must also be taken into account when selecting the technique for each patient.
Collapse
Key Words
- AC, Abdominal Compression
- Abdominal compression
- BED, Biologically Effective Dose
- CBCT, Cone Beam Computed Tomography
- EBH, Exhale Breath Hold
- FB, Free Breathing
- FFF, Flattening Filter Free
- GTV, Gross Tumor Volume
- IMRT, Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy
- ITV, Internal Target Volume
- Liver
- Motion management
- PTV, Planning Target Volume
- SBRT, Stereotactic body radiation thearpy
- Stereotactic body radiation therapy
- VMAT, Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy
- exhale breath hold. Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicholas Hardcastle
- Physical Sciences, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Centre for Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia
- Corresponding author.
| | - Mathieu Gaudreault
- Physical Sciences, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Adam U. Yeo
- Physical Sciences, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Elena Ungureanu
- Physical Sciences, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Cathy Markham
- Department of Radiation Therapy, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Rebecca Barnes
- Department of Radiation Therapy, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Sarat Chander
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Julie Chu
- Physical Sciences, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|