An IMRT/VMAT Technique for Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer

3D printed heterogeneous paediatric head and adult thorax phantoms for linear accelerator radiotherapy quality assurance: from fabrication to treatment delivery

Objective. This study aims to design and fabricate a 3D printed heterogeneous paediatric head phantom and to customize a thorax phantom for radiotherapy dosimetry.Approach. This study designed, fabricated, and tested 3D printed radiotherapy phantoms that can simulate soft tissue, lung, brain, and bone. Various polymers were considered in designing the phantoms. Polylactic acid+, nylon, and plaster were used in simulating different tissue equivalence. Dimensional accuracy, and CT number were investigated. The phantoms were subjected to a complete radiotherapy clinical workflow. Several treatment plans were delivered in both the head and the thorax phantom from a simple single 6 MV beam, parallel opposed beams, and five-field intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) beams. Dose measurements using an ionization chamber and radiochromic films were compared with the calculated doses of the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS).Main results. The fabricated heterogeneous phantoms represent paediatric human head and adult thorax based on its radiation attenuation and anatomy. The measured CT number ranges are within -786.23 ± 10.55, 0.98 ± 3.86, 129.51 ± 12.83, and 651.14 ± 47.76 HU for lung, water/brain, soft tissue, and bone, respectively. It has a good radiological imaging visual similarity relative to a real human head and thorax depicting soft tissue, lung, bone, and brain. The accumulated dose readings for both conformal radiotherapy and IMRT match with the TPS calculated dose within ±2% and ±4% for head and thorax phantom, respectively. The mean pass rate for all the plans delivered are above 90% for gamma analysis criterion of 3%/3 mm.Significance and conclusion. The fabricated heterogeneous paediatric head and thorax phantoms are useful in Linac end-to-end radiotherapy quality assurance based on its CT image and measured radiation dose. The manufacturing and dosimetry workflow of this study can be utilized by other institutions for dosimetry and trainings.

Cutting-Edge Therapies for Lung Cancer

Lung cancer remains a formidable global health challenge that necessitates inventive strategies to improve its therapeutic outcomes. The conventional treatments, including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation, have demonstrated limitations in achieving sustained responses. Therefore, exploring novel approaches encompasses a range of interventions that show promise in enhancing the outcomes for patients with advanced or refractory cases of lung cancer. These groundbreaking interventions can potentially overcome cancer resistance and offer personalized solutions. Despite the rapid evolution of emerging lung cancer therapies, persistent challenges such as resistance, toxicity, and patient selection underscore the need for continued development. Consequently, the landscape of lung cancer therapy is transforming with the introduction of precision medicine, immunotherapy, and innovative therapeutic modalities. Additionally, a multifaceted approach involving combination therapies integrating targeted agents, immunotherapies, or traditional cytotoxic treatments addresses the heterogeneity of lung cancer while minimizing its adverse effects. This review provides a brief overview of the latest emerging therapies that are reshaping the landscape of lung cancer treatment. As these novel treatments progress through clinical trials are integrated into standard care, the potential for more effective, targeted, and personalized lung cancer therapies comes into focus, instilling renewed hope for patients facing challenging diagnoses.

Comparison of photon intensity modulated, hybrid and volumetric modulated arc radiation treatment techniques in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Background and purpose

There is no consensus on the best photon radiation technique for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study quantified the differences between commonly used treatment techniques in NSCLC to find the optimal technique.

Materials and methods

Treatment plans were retrospectively generated according to clinical guidelines for 26 stage III NSCLC patients using intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), hybrid, and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMATC, and VMATV5 optimized for lower lung and heart dose). Plans were evaluated for target coverage, organs at risk dose (including heart substructures) and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP).

Results

The comparison showed significant and largest median differences (>1 Gy or >5%) in favor of IMRT for the mediastinal envelope and heart (maximum dose), in favor of the hybrid technique for the lungs (V5Gy of the total lungs and V5Gy of the contralateral lung) and in favor of VMATC for the heart (Dmean), most of the substructures of the heart, and the spinal cord (maximum dose). The VMATV5 technique had significantly lower heart dose compared to the hybrid technique and significantly lower lung dose compared to the VMATC, combining both advantages in one technique. The mean ΔNTCP did not exceed the 2 percent point (pp) for grade 5 (mortality), and 10 pp for grade ≥2 toxicities (radiation pneumonitis and acute esophageal toxicity), but ΔNTCP was mostly in favor of VMATC/V5 for individual patients.

Conclusion

This planning study showed that VMATV5 was preferred as it achieved low lung and heart doses, as well as low NTCPs, simultaneously.

Volumetric modulated arc therapy versus tomotherapy for late T-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Purpose

To compare the dosimetric parameters and clinical outcomes between volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and tomotherapy for treating late T-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).

Methods

Patients with non-metastatic late T-stage NPC who received definitive radiotherapy with tomotherapy or VMAT were selected. 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control the balance of confounding factors. The dosimetric parameters and clinical outcomes were compared.

Results

A total of 171 patients were enrolled before matching, with 61 patients in the VMAT group and 110 patients in the tomotherapy group. In the post-PSM cohort, 54 sub-pairs of 108 patients were included after matching. Tomotherapy was superior to VMAT in the dosimetric parameters of planning target volumes, brainstem, spinal cord, lenses, and parotid glands but inferior in the optic nerves and optic chiasm. The tomotherapy group had a lower incidence of grade ≥ 3 acute mucositis (22.2% vs. 40.7%, p = 0.038) and a higher rate of complete response (83.3% vs. 66.7%, p = 0.046) after radiotherapy. However, there were no significant differences in locoregional failure-free survival (p = 0.375), distant metastasis-free survival (p = 0.529), or overall survival (p = 0.975) between the two groups.

Conclusion

Tomotherapy is superior to VMAT in terms of most dosimetric parameters, with less acute mucositis and better short-term efficacy. There are no significant differences in the survival outcomes between the VMAT and tomotherapy groups.

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.

Noncoplanar VMAT for Brain Metastases: A Plan Quality and Delivery Efficiency Comparison With Coplanar VMAT, IMRT, and CyberKnife

Purpose:

To compare plan quality and delivery efficiency of noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy with coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy, and CyberKnife for multiple brain metastases.

Methods:

For 15 patients with multiple brain metastases, noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy, coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy, and CyberKnife plans with a prescription dose of 30 Gy in 3 fractions were generated. Noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy and coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy plans consisted of 4 noncoplanar arcs and 2 full coplanar arcs, respectively. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans consisted of 7 coplanar fields. CyberKnife plans used skull tracking to ensure accurate position. All plans were generated to cover 95% target volume with prescription dose. Gradient index, conformity index, normal brain tissue volume (V_3Gy − V_24Gy), monitor units, and beam on time were evaluated.

Results:

Gradient index was the lowest for CyberKnife (3.49 ± 0.65), followed by noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (4.21 ± 1.38), coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (4.87 ± 1.35), and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (5.36 ± 1.98). Conformity index was the largest for noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (0.87 ± 0.03), followed by coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (0.86 ± 0.04), CyberKnife (0.86 ± 0.07), and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (0.85 ± 0.05). Normal brain tissue volume at high-to-moderate dose spreads (V_24Gy − V_9Gy) was significantly reduced in noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy over that of intensity-modulated radiation therapy and coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy. Normal brain tissue volume for noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy was comparable with noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy at high-dose level (V_24Gy − V_15Gy) and larger than CyberKnife at moderate-to-low dose level (V_12Gy − V_3Gy). Monitor units was highest for CyberKnife (28 733.59 ± 7197.85), followed by intensity-modulated radiation therapy (4128.40 ± 1185.38), noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (3105.20 ± 371.23), and coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (2997.27 ± 446.84). Beam on time was longest for CyberKnife (30.25 ± 7.32 minutes), followed by intensity-modulated radiation therapy (2.95 ± 0.85 minutes), noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (2.61 ± 0.07 minutes), and coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (2.30 ± 0.23 minutes).

Conclusion:

For brain metastases far away from organs-at-risk, noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy generated more rapid dose falloff and higher conformity compared to intensity-modulated radiation therapy and coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy. Noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy provided a comparable dose falloff with CyberKnife at high-dose level and a slower dose falloff than CyberKnife at moderate-to-low dose level. Noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy plans had less monitor units and shorter beam on time than CyberKnife plans.

Dosimetric evaluation of VMAT for palliative radiotherapy for non-small cell lung carcinoma

OBJECTIVE:

To compare the dosimetric consequences of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for high-dose palliative thoracic radiotherapy through comparison with conventionally used isocentric parallel opposed pair (POP) of fields.

METHODS:

20 consecutive patients with non-small cell lung cancer who received 36 Gy in 12 fractions using a POP technique were re-planned using a single VMAT arc. Salient dosimetric parameters were compared between the plans using a paired t-test.

RESULTS:

VMAT demonstrated dosimetric superiority; all PTV dose parameters were significantly improved and importantly the volume of normal lung receiving a high dose was also significantly reduced (mean volume of normal lung receiving 36 Gy was 12.9% in POP vs 1.8% in VMAT, p < 0.005).

CONCLUSION:

The standard POP technique does not take into account tissue densities which results in higher doses to the normal tissue outside the target volume and reduced conformity to the PTV.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:

With the help of modern VMAT techniques, it is possible to effectively achieve highly conformal dose delivery which may provide an opportunity to escalate the dose to the tumour in this group of patients.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy versus volumetric-modulated arc therapy in non-small cell lung cancer: assessing the risk of radiation pneumonitis

Purpose

This study aimed to compare intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) regarding plan quality and healthy lung sparing, in stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.

Materials and methods

The plans of 60 patients were allocated either to the IMRT (n=30) or the VMAT (n=30) group. The dose prescribed to the planning target volume (PTV) was evaluated at the 95% level and the mean lung dose (MLD) and the healthy lung receiving 5, 10 and 20 Gy (V5, V10and V20, respectively) were analysed. The normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for radiation pneumonitis was calculated with the Lyman–Kutcher–Burman model.

Results

Both techniques achieved comparable results for target coverage (V95%=97·87 versus 97·18%,p>0·05) and homogeneity. The MLD (15·57 versus 16·98 Gy,p>0·05), V5(60·35 versus 67·25%,p>0·05) and V10(45·22 versus 53·14%,p=0·011) were lower for IMRT, whereas VMAT reduced V20(26·44 versus 25·90%,p>0·05). The NTCP for radiation pneumonitis was higher for VMAT, but no statistical significance was observed (11·07 versus 12·75,p>0·05).

Conclusion

Both techniques seemed suitable for NSCLC treatment, but IMRT presented better results regarding lung sparing thus being beneficial in reducing the risk of radiation-induced pneumonitis.

VMAT plus a few computer-optimized non-coplanar IMRT beams (VMAT+) tested for liver SBRT

PURPOSE

To propose a novel treatment approach, designated VMAT+, involving addition of <5 IMRT beams with computer-optimized non-coplanar orientations to VMAT, and evaluate it for liver Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT). VMAT+ is investigated as an alternative for (1) coplanar VMAT and (2) multi-beam non-coplanar treatment.

METHODS/MATERIALS

For fifteen patients with liver metastases, VMAT+ plans were compared with (1) dual-arc VMAT and (2) 25-beam, non-coplanar treatment with computer-optimized beam orientations (25-NCP). All plans were generated fully automatically for delivery of the highest feasible tumor Biologically Effective Dose (BED). OAR doses, intermediate-dose-spillage, dose-compactness, and measured delivery times were evaluated.

RESULTS

With VMAT+ the maximum achievable tumor BED was equal to that of 25-NCP. Conversely, VMAT resulted in a lower tumor BED in 5 patients. Compared to VMAT, VMAT+ yielded significant dose reductions in OARs. Intermediate-dose-spillage and dose-compactness were significantly improved by 9.8% and 17.3% (p≤0.002), respectively. Treatment times with VMAT+ were only enhanced by 4.1min on average, compared to VMAT (8.4min). Improvements in OAR sparing with 25-NCP, compared to VMAT+, were generally modest and/or statistically insignificant, while delivery times were on average 20.5min longer.

CONCLUSIONS

For liver SBRT, VMAT+ is equivalent to time-consuming treatment with 25 non-coplanar beams in terms of achievable tumor BED. Compared to VMAT, OAR sparing and intermediate-dose-spillage are significantly improved, with minor increase in delivery time.