Assessment of biological dosimetric margin for stereotactic body radiation therapy

Physical and biological dosimetric margin according to prescription method for stereotactic body radiation therapy

This study aimed to expand the biological conversion factor (BCF) model, which converts the physical dosimetric margin (PDM) to the biological dosimetric margin (BDM) for point prescription with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) and the marginal prescription method with volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT). The VMAT of the marginal prescription and the 3DCRT of the point prescription with lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) by using RayStation were planned. The biological equivalent dose (BED) for a dose per fraction (DPF) of 3-20 Gy was calculated from these plans. The dose was perturbed with the calculation using a 1-mm step isocenter shift. The dose covering 95% of the target was greater than or equal to 90% of the prescribed physical dose, and the BED were defined as the PDM and BDM, respectively. The BCF was created as a function of the DPF. The PDM and BDM for all DPFs were larger with the point prescription method than with the marginal prescription method. The marginal prescription method with a 60% isodose line had a larger PDM and BDM. The BCF with the point prescription was smaller than that with the marginal prescription in the left-right (LR), anterior-posterior (AP) and cranio-caudal (CC) directions. In the marginal prescription method, the 60% isodose line had a higher BCF. In conclusion, the improved BCF method could be converted to BDM for point prescription with 3DCRT and marginal prescription method with VMAT, which is required for stereotactic radiation therapy in radiobiology-based treatment planning.

Robust optimization of VMAT for prostate cancer accounting for geometric uncertainty

The aim of this study was to propose optimal robust planning by comparing the robustness with setup error with the robustness of a conventional planning target volume (PTV)‐based plan and to compare the robust plan to the PTV‐based plan for the target and organ at risk (OAR). Data from 13 patients with intermediate‐to‐high‐risk localized prostate cancer who did not have T3b disease were analyzed. The dose distribution under multiple setup error scenarios was assessed using a conventional PTV‐based plan. The clinical target volume (CTV) and OAR dose in moving coordinates were used for the dose constraint with the robust plan. The hybrid robust plan added the dose constraint of the PTV‐rectum to the static coordinate system. When the isocenter was shifted by 10 mm in the superior–inferior direction and 8 mm in the right‐left and anterior directions, the doses to the CTV, bladder, and rectum of the PTV‐based plan, robust plan, and hybrid robust plan were compared. For the CTV D_99% in the PTV‐based plan and hybrid robust plan, over 95% of the prescribed dose was secured in all directions, except in the inferior direction. There was no significant difference between the PTV‐based plan and the hybrid robust plan for rectum V_70Gy, V_60Gy, and V_40Gy. This study proposed an optimization method for patients with prostate cancer. When the setup error occurred within the PTV margin, the dose robustness of the CTV for the hybrid robust plan was higher than that of the PTV‐based plan, while maintaining the equivalent OAR dose.