Regression models for predicting physical and EQD2 plan parameters of two methods of hybrid planning for stage III NSCLC

Voxel-Level BED Corrected Dosimetric and Radiobiological Assessment of 2 Kinds of Hybrid Radiotherapy Planning Methods for Stage III NSCLC

Background/purpose: To access the comparative dosimetric and radiobiological advantages of two methods of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)-based hybrid radiotherapy planning for stage III nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Two hybrid planning methods were respectively characterized by conventional fraction radiotherapy (CFRT) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and CFRT and simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) planning. All plans were retrospectively completed using the 2 methods for 20 patients with stage III NSCLC. CFRT and SBRT dose regimes 2 Gy  ×  30 f and 12.5 Gy  ×  4 f were, respectively, used for planning target volume of lymph node (PTV_LN) and planning target volume of the primary tumor (PTV_PT), while dose regimes 2 Gy  ×  26 f for PTV_LN and sequential 2 Gy  ×  4 f for PTV_LN combined with 12.5 Gy  ×  4 f for PTV_PT were adopted for CFRT and SIB plans. SBRT and SIB EQD₂ dose were calculated voxel by voxel, and then, respectively, superimposed with 30-fraction and 26-fraction CFRT plan dose to achieve biological equivalent dose (BED) dosimetric parameters of CFRT and SBRT and CFRT and SIB plans. Tumor control probability (TCP)/normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) was, respectively, calculated by equivalent uniform dose/Lyman–Kutcher–Burman models. BED plan parameters and TCP/NTCP were analyzed between 2 methods of hybrid planning. Primary tumor/lymph node (LN)/total TCP values were, respectively, evaluated as a function of the radiation dose needed to control 50% of tumor (TCD₅₀) for 20 patients. Dosimetric errors were analyzed by nontransit electronic portal imaging device dosimetry measurement during hybrid plan delivery. Results: Statistically lower BED plan parameters of PTV_LN D₂ and homogeneity index resulted in slightly lower averaged LN/total TCP curves by CFRT and SIB planning. The gaps between Max and Min LN/total TCP curves were significantly closer for CFRT and SIB planning, which indicated better robustness of LN/total TCPs. A lower esophagus dose resulted in a lower esophagus NTCP by CFRT and SIB planning, which may be compromised by 1 week shorter overall treatment time by CFRT and SIB irradiation. Spinal cord D_max was significantly reduced by CFRT and SIB plans. The dose verification results of the subplans involved in hybrid plans were acceptable, which showed that the 2 methods of hybrid planning could be delivered accurately in our center. Conclusion: CFRT and SIB plannings have more advantages on BED plan parameters and TCP/NTCP than CFRT and SBRT planning, and both methods of IMRT-based hybrid planning could be executed accurately for stage III NSCLC. The effectiveness of the results needs to be validated in the hybrid trial.

Investigation of Predictors to Achieve Acceptable Lung Dose in T-Shaped Upper and Middle Esophageal Cancer With IMRT and VMAT

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether there are predictors and cutoff points that can predict the acceptable lung dose using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volume-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in radiotherapy for upper ang middle esophageal cancer.

Material and Methods

Eighty-two patients with T-shaped upper-middle esophageal cancer (UMEC) were enrolled in this retrospective study. Jaw-tracking IMRT plan (JT-IMRT), full-arc VMAT plan (F-VMAT), and pactial-arc VMAT plan (P-VMAT) were generated for each patient. Dosimetric parameters such as MLD and V20 of total lung were compared among the three plannings. Ten factors such as PCTV_inferior length and PCTV_inferior length/total lung length were calculated to find the predictors and cutoff points of the predictors. All patients were divided into two groups according to the cutoff points, and the dosimetric differences between the two groups of the three plans were compared. ANOVA, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, and Mann–Whitney U-test were performed for comparisons between datasets. A p <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Result

The quality of the targets of the three plannings was comparable. The total lung dose in P-VMAT was significantly lower than that in JT IMRT and F-VMAT. Monitor unit (MU) of F-VMAT and P-VMAT was significantly lower than that of JT IMRT. ROC analysis showed that among JT IMRT, F-VMAT, and P-VMAT, PCTV_i-L, and PCTV_i-L/TL_L had diagnostic power to predict the suitability of RT plans according to lung dose constraints of our department. For JT IMRT, the cutoff points of PCTV_i-L and PCTV_i-L/TL_L were 16.6 and 0.59. For F-VMAT, the cutoff points of PCTV_i-L and PCTV_i-L/TL_L were 16.75 and 0.62. For P-VMAT, the cutoff points of PCTV_i-L and PCTV_i-L/TL_L were 15.15 and 0.59. After Mann–Whitney U-test analysis, it was found that among the three plannings, the group with lower PCTV_i-L and PCTV_i-L/TL_L could significantly reduce the dose of total lung and heart (p <0.05).

Conclusion

PCTV_{i-L <}16.6 and PCTV_i-L/TL_L <0.59 for JT IMRT, PCTV_{i-L <}16.75 and PCTV_i-L/TL_L <0.62 for F-VMAT and PCTV_{i-L <}15.15, and PCTV_i-L/TL_L <0.59 for P-VMAT can predict whether patients with T-shaped UMEC can meet the lung dose limits of our department.