Evaluation of pencil beam convolution and anisotropic analytical algorithms in stereotactic lung irradiation

Dosimetrical and radiobiological approach to manage the dosimetric shift in the transition of dose calculation algorithm in radiation oncology: how to improve high quality treatment and avoid unexpected outcomes?

BACKGROUND

For a given prescribed dose of radiotherapy, with the successive generations of dose calculation algorithms, more monitor units (MUs) are generally needed. This is due to the implementation of successive improvements in dose calculation: better heterogeneity correction and more accurate estimation of secondary electron transport contribution. More recently, there is the possibility to report the dose-to-medium, physically more accurate compared to the dose-to-water as the reference one. This last point is a recent concern and the main focus of this study.

METHODS

In this paper, we propose steps for a general analysis procedure to estimate the dosimetric alterations, and the potential clinical changes, between a reference algorithm and a new one. This includes dosimetric parameters, gamma index, radiobiology indices based on equivalent uniform dose concept and statistics with bootstrap simulation. Finally, we provide a general recommendation on the clinical use of new algorithms regarding the dose prescription or dose limits to the organs at risks.

RESULTS

The dosimetrical and radiobiological data showed a significant effect, which might exceed 5-10%, of the calculation method on the dose the distribution and clinical outcomes for lung cancer patients. Wilcoxon signed rank paired comparisons indicated that the delivered dose in MUs was significantly increased (> 2%) using more advanced dose calculation methods as compared to the reference one.

CONCLUSION

This paper illustrates and explains the use of dosimetrical, radiobiologcal and statistical tests for dosimetric comparisons in radiotherapy. The change of dose calculation algorithm may induce a dosimetric shift, which has to be evaluated by the physicists and the oncologists. This includes the impact on tumor control and on the risk of toxicity based on normal tissue dose constraints. In fact, the alteration in dose distribution makes it hard to keep exactly the same tumor control probability along with the same normal tissue complication probability.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy for stage I non-small-cell lung cancer using higher doses for larger tumors: results of the second study

Background

Efficacy of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in stage I non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has almost been established. In Japan, the protocol of 48 Gy in 4 fractions over 4 days has been most often employed, but higher doses may be necessary to control large tumors. Previously, we conducted a clinical study using SBRT for stage I NSCLC employing different doses depending on tumor diameter, which was closed in 2008. Thereafter, a new study employing higher doses has been conducted, which is reported here. The purpose of this study was to review the safety and effectiveness of the higher doses.

Methods

We escalated the total dose for the improvement of local control for large tumors. In this study, 71 patients underwent SBRT between December 2008 and April 2014. Isocenter doses of 48, 50, and 52 Gy were administered for tumors with a longest diameter of < 1.5 cm, 1.5–3 cm, and > 3 cm, respectively. It was recommended to cover 95% of the PTV with at least 90% of the isocenter dose, and in all but one cases, 95% of the PTV received at least 80% of the prescribed dose. Treatments were delivered in 4 fractions, giving 2 fractions per week. SBRT was performed with 6-MV photons using 4 non-coplanar and 3 coplanar beams.

Results

The median follow-up period was 44 months for all patients and 61 months for living patients. Overall survival (OS) was 65%, progression-free survival (PFS) was 55%, and cumulative incidence of local recurrence (LR) was 15% at 5 years. The 5-year OS was 69% for 57 stage IA patients and 53% for 14 stage IB patients (p = 0.44). The 5-year PFS was 55 and 54%, respectively (p = 0.98). The 5-year cumulative incidence of LR was 11 and 31%, respectively (p = 0.09). The cumulative incidence of Grade ≥ 2 radiation pneumonitis was 25%.

Conclusions

Our newer SBRT study yielded reasonable local control and overall survival and acceptable toxicity, but escalating the total dose did not lead to improved outcomes.

Trial registration

UMIN000027231, registered on 3 May 2017. Retrospectively registered.

Statistic and dosimetric criteria to assess the shift of the prescribed dose for lung radiotherapy plans when integrating point kernel models in medical physics: are we ready?

BACKGROUND

To apply the statistical bootstrap analysis and dosimetric criteria's to assess the change of prescribed dose (PD) for lung cancer to maintain the same clinical results when using new generations of dose calculation algorithms.

METHODS

Nine lung cancer cases were studied. For each patient, three treatment plans were generated using exactly the same beams arrangements. In plan 1, the dose was calculated using pencil beam convolution (PBC) algorithm turning on heterogeneity correction with modified batho (PBC-MB). In plan 2, the dose was calculated using anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and the same PD, as plan 1. In plan 3, the dose was calculated using AAA with monitor units (MUs) obtained from PBC-MB, as input. The dosimetric criteria's include MUs, delivered dose at isocentre (Diso) and calculated dose to 95% of the target volume (D95). The bootstrap method was used to assess the significance of the dose differences and to accurately estimate the 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Wilcoxon and Spearman's rank tests were used to calculate P values and the correlation coefficient (ρ).

RESULTS

Statistically significant for dose difference was found using point kernel model. A good correlation was observed between both algorithms types, with ρ>0.9. Using AAA instead of PBC-MB, an adjustment of the PD in the isocentre is suggested.

CONCLUSIONS

For a given set of patients, we assessed the need to readjust the PD for lung cancer using dosimetric indices and bootstrap statistical method. Thus, if the goal is to keep on with the same clinical results, the PD for lung tumors has to be adjusted with AAA. According to our simulation we suggest to readjust the PD by 5% and an optimization for beam arrangements to better protect the organs at risks (OARs).

Clinical evaluation of an anatomy-based patient specific quality assurance system

The Delta(4DVH) Anatomy 3D quality assurance (QA) system (ScandiDos), which converts the measured detector dose into the dose distribution in the patient geometry was evaluated. It allows a direct comparison of the calculated 3D dose with the measured back-projected dose. In total, 16 static and 16 volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) fields were planned using four different energies. Isocenter dose was measured with a pinpoint chamber in homogeneous phantoms to investigate the dose prediction by the Delta(4DVH) Anatomy algorithm for static fields. Dose distributions of VMAT fields were measured using GAFCHROMIC film. Gravitational gantry errors up to 10° were introduced into all VMAT plans to study the potential of detecting errors. Additionally, 20 clinical treatment plans were verified. For static fields, the Delta(4DVH) Anatomy predicted the isocenter dose accurately, with a deviation to the measured phantom dose of 1.1% ± 0.6%. For VMAT fields the predicted Delta(4DVH) Anatomy dose in the isocenter plane corresponded to the measured dose in the phantom, with an average gamma agreement index (GAI) (3 mm/3%) of 96.9± 0.4%. The Delta(4DVH) Anatomy detected the induced systematic gantry error of 10° with a relative GAI (3 mm/3%) change of 5.8% ± 1.6%. The conventional Delta(4PT) QA system detected a GAI change of 4.2%± 2.0%. The conventional Delta(4PT) GAI (3 mm/3%) was 99.8% ± 0.4% for the clinical treatment plans. The mean body and PTV-GAI (3 mm/5%) for the Delta(4DVH) Anatomy were 96.4% ± 2.0% and 97.7%± 1.8%; however, this dropped to 90.8%± 3.4% and 87.1% ± 4.1% for passing criteria of 3 mm/3%. The anatomy-based patient specific quality assurance system predicts the dose distribution correctly for a homogeneous case. The limiting factor for the error detection is the large variability in the error-free plans. The dose calculation algorithm is inferior to that used in the TPS (Eclipse).