2153 Stereotactic radiation therapy for primary or metastatic lung cancer: Preliminary experience with a linear accelerator-based treatment unit

Stereotactic radiotherapy of primary lung cancer and other targets: results of consultant meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency

To evaluate the current status of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and identify both advantages and disadvantages of its use in developing countries, a meeting composed of consultants of the International Atomic Energy Agency was held in Vienna in November 2006. Owing to continuous developments in the field, the meeting was extended by subsequent discussions and correspondence (2007-2010), which led to the summary presented here. The advantages and disadvantages of SBRT expected to be encountered in developing countries were identified. The definitions, typical treatment courses, and clinical results were presented. Thereafter, minimal methodology/technology requirements for SBRT were evaluated. Finally, characteristics of SBRT for developing countries were recommended. Patients for SBRT should be carefully selected, because single high-dose radiotherapy may cause serious complications in some serial organs at risk. Clinical experiences have been reported in some populations of lung cancer, lung oligometastases, liver cancer, pancreas cancer, and kidney cancer. Despite the disadvantages expected to be experienced in developing countries, SBRT using fewer fractions may be useful in selected patients with various extracranial cancers with favorable outcome and low toxicity.

Impact of IMRT and leaf width on stereotactic body radiotherapy of liver and lung lesions

PURPOSE

The present study explored the impact of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) on stereotactic body RT (SBRT) of liver and lung lesions. Additionally, because target dose conformity can be affected by the leaf width of a multileaf collimator (MLC), especially for small targets and stereotactic applications, the use of a micro-MLC on "uniform intensity" conformal and intensity-modulated SBRT was evaluated.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The present study included 10 patients treated previously with SBRT in our institution (seven lung and three liver lesions). All patients were treated with 3 x 12 Gy prescribed to the 65% isodose level. The actual MLC-based conformal treatment plan served as the standard for additional comparison. In total, seven alternative treatment plans were made for each patient: a standard (actual) plan and an IMRT plan, both calculated with Helax TMS (Nucletron) using a pencil beam model; and a recalculated standard and a recalculated IMRT plan on Helax TMS using a point dose kernel approach. These four treatment plans were based on a standard MLC with 1-cm leaf width. Additionally, the following micro-MLC (central leaf width 3 mm)-based treatment plans were calculated with the BrainSCAN (BrainLAB) system: standard, IMRT, and dynamic arc treatments. For each treatment plan, various target parameters (conformity, coverage, mean, maximal, and minimal target dose, equivalent uniform doses, and dose-volume histogram), as well as organs at risk parameters (3 Gy and 6 Gy volume, mean dose, dose-volume histogram) were evaluated. Finally, treatment efficiency was estimated from monitor units and the number of segments for IMRT solutions.

RESULTS

For both treatment planning systems, no significant difference could be observed in terms of target conformity between the standard and IMRT dose distributions. All dose distributions obtained with the micro-MLC showed significantly better conformity values compared with the standard and IMRT plans using a regular MLC. Dynamic arc plans were characterized by the steepest dose gradient and thus the smallest V(6 Gy) values, which were on average 7% smaller than the standard plans and 20% lower than the IMRT plans. Although the Helax TMS IMRT plans show about 18% more monitor units than the standard plan, BrainSCAN IMRT plans require approximately twice the number of monitor units relative to the standard plan. All treatment plans optimized with a pencil beam model but recalculated with a superposition method showed significant qualitative, as well as quantitative, differences, especially with respect to conformity and the dose to organs at risk.

CONCLUSION

Standard conformal treatment techniques for SBRT could not be improved with inversely planned IMRT approaches. Dose calculation algorithms applied in optimization modules for IMRT applications in the thoracic region need to be based on the most accurate dose calculation algorithms, especially when using higher energy photon beams.