Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:06:25.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Treatment planning for non-small cell lung tumours: VMAT versus 3DCRT a quantitative dosimetric study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 November 2019

Ahmed Hadj Henni Open the ORCID record for Ahmed Hadj Henni [Opens in a new window] ,
Yann Lauzin ,
Nicolas Pirault ,
Brian Dubos ,
Maximilien Roge ,
Perrine Clarisse ,
David Gensanne  and
Sebastien Thureau
Ahmed Hadj Henni*
Affiliation:
Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen, France
Yann Lauzin
Affiliation:
Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen, France
Nicolas Pirault
Affiliation:
Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen, France
Brian Dubos
Affiliation:
Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen, France
Maximilien Roge
Affiliation:
Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen, France
Perrine Clarisse
Affiliation:
Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen, France
David Gensanne
Affiliation:
Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen, France
Sebastien Thureau
Affiliation:
Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen, France
*
Author for correspondence: Ahmed Hadj Henni, Centre Henri Becquerel, 1 rue d’Amiens 76000, Rouen, France. Tel: +33(0)2 32 08 25 85. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Purpose:

The dosimetric impact of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in lung cancer compared with 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) is well known. However, this improvement is often associated with an increase in low doses. The aim of this study is to quantify these results more accurately.

Methods:

For each patient treated with 3DCRT, a second VMAT treatment plan was calculated. Usual dosimetric parameters such as target coverage or dose to the organs at risk were used to achieve the comparisons.

Results:

For planning target volume, homogeneity and conformity indices showed superiority of VMAT (respectively 0·07 and 0·87) compared to 3DCRT (0·11 and 0·57). For spinal cord planning organ at risk volume, the median maximum dose was 45·6 Gy in 3DCRT against 19·3 Gy in VMAT. Heart volume receiving at least 35 Gy (V35) decreased from 15·64% in 3DCRT to 8·28% in VMAT. Oesophagus V50 was higher in 3DCRT (25·45%) than in VMAT (14·03%). The mean lung dose was 17·9 Gy in 3DCRT versus 15·5 Gy in VMAT. Moreover, volumes receiving 5, 10 and 15 Gy were not significantly different between the two techniques when VMAT was performed with partial arcs.

Conclusion:

All the dosimetric parameters were improved with VMAT compared to the 3DCRT without increasing low doses when using partial arcs.

Keywords

3D conformal radiotherapylow dose volumesnon-small cell lung cancervolumetric modulated arc therapy
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , December 2020 , pp. 327 - 332
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Collaborative Working Group. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy: current status and issues of interest. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001; 51: 880–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haute Autorité de santé (HAS). Évaluation de la radiothérapie conformationnelle avec modulation d’intensité dans les cancers du col utérin et du canal anal [Note de cadrage]. (Saint-Denis La Plaine, France, 2013).Google Scholar
Auperin, A, Le Péchoux, C, Pignon, J P et al. Concomitant radio-chemotherapy based on platin compounds in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a meta-analysis of individual data from 1764 patients. Ann Oncol 2006; 17: 473–483.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Antonia, S J, Villegas, A, Daniel, D et al. Durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2017 Nov 16; 377 (20): 1919–1929. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1709937. Epub 2017 Sep 8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vera, P, Mihailescu, S D, Lequesne, J et al. Radiotherapy boost in patients with hypoxic lesions identified by 18F-FMISO PET/CT in non-small-cell lung carcinoma: can we expect a better survival outcome without toxicity? [RTEP5 long-term follow-up]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2019 Mar 13; 46 (7): 1448–1456. doi: 10.1007/s00259-019-04285-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, S, Sun, X, Li, M et al. A randomized study of involved-field irradiation versus elective nodal irradiation in combination with concurrent chemotherapy for inoperable stage III nonsmall cell lung cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 2007 Jun; 30 (3): 239–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradley, J D, Paulus, R, Komaki, R et al. Standard-dose versus high-dose conformal radiotherapy with concurrent and consolidation carboplatin plus paclitaxel with or without cetuximab for patients with stage IIIA or IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer (RTOG 0617): a randomised, two-by-two factorial phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol 2015 Feb; 16 (2): 187–199. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)71207-0. Epub 2015 Jan 16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bree, I D, Van Hinsberg, M G, van Veelan, L R et al. High-dose radiotherapy in inoperable nonsmall cell lung cancer: comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy, dynamic IMRT and 3D conformal radiotherapy. Med Dosim 2012; 37: 353–357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ong, C L, Verbakel, W F, Cuijpers, J P, Slotman, B J, Lagerwaard, F J, Senan, S. Stereotactic radiotherapy for peripheral lung tumors: a comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy with 3 other delivery techniques. Radiother Oncol 2010; 97: 437–442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayo, C S, Urie, M M, Fitzgerald, T J et al. Hybrid IMRT for treatment of cancers of the lung and esophagus. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 71 (5): 1408–1418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chan, O, Lee, M, Hung, A, Chang, A, Yeung, R, Lee, A. The superiority of hybrid-volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) technique over double arcs VMAT and 3D-conformal technique in the treatment of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer – a planning study Radiother Oncol 2011; 101: 298–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ICRU. Prescribing, recording and reporting photon beam therapy (Supplement to ICRU Report 50), ICRU Report 62, ICRU, Bethesda, MD, USA pp. ix+52, 1999.Google Scholar
ICRU. Prescribing, recording and reporting photon-beam intensity-modulated radiation therapy, Journal of the ICRU Vol. 10 (1) Report 83, Oxford University Press, 2010. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AAPM. REPORT NO. 85 Tissue inhomogeneity corrections for megavoltage photon beams. Report of Task Group No. 65 of the Radiation Therapy Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (Madison, WI, USA, 2004).Google Scholar
Aarup, L R, Nahum, A E, Zacharatou, C et al. The effect of different lung densities on the accuracy of various radiotherapy dose calculation methods: Implications for tumour coverage. Radiother Oncol 2009; 91: 405–414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, Y H, Park, D, Park, H R et al. Effect of collimator angles on the dosimetric results of volumetric modulated arc therapy planning for patients with a locally-advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. J Korean Phys Soc 2017; 70 (5): 539–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paddick, I, Lippitz, B. A simple dose gradient measurement tool to complement the conformity index. J Neurosurg 2006; 105 (suppl), 194–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plathow, C, Ley, S, Fink, C et al. Analysis of intrathoracic tumor mobility during whole breathing cycle by dynamic MRI. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 59 (4): 952–959.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matsuzaki, Y, Fujii, K, Kumagai, M, Tsuruoka, I, Mori, S. Effective and organ doses using helical 4DCT for thoracic and abdominal therapies. J Radiat Res 2013; 54: 962–970.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yegya-Raman, N, Kim, S, Deek, M P et al. Daily image guidance with cone beam computed tomography may reduce radiation pneumonitis in unresectable non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018 Aug 1; 101 (5): 1104–1112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bortfeld, T, Jiang, S B, Rietzel, E. Effects of motion on the total dose distribution. Semin Radiat Oncol 2004; 14 (1): 41–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed