Dosimetric comparison of four radiotherapy techniques for stage III non‑small cell lung cancer

Evaluation of the conformity of intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy using AAPM TG 119 protocol

The aim of this work was to evaluate the conformity of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and verify the accuracy of the planning and delivery system used in this work based on the AAPM TG-119 protocol. The Eclipse 13.6 treatment planning system (TPS) was used to plan the TG-119 test suite, which included four test cases: MultiTarget, Prostate, Head/Neck, and C-Shape for IMRT and VMAT techniques with 6 MV and 10 MV acceleration voltages. The results were assessed and discussed in terms of the TG-119 protocol and the results of previous studies. In addition, point dose and planar dose measurements were done using a semiflex ion chamber and an electronic portal imaging device (EPID), respectively. The planned doses of all test cases met the criteria of the TG-119 protocol, except those for the spinal cord of the C-Shape hard case. There were no significant differences between the treatment planning doses and the doses given in the TG-119 report, with p-values ranging from 0.974 to 1 (p > 0.05). Doses to the target volumes were similar in the IMRT and VMAT plans, but the organs at risk (OARs) doses were different depending on the test case. The planning results showed that IMRT is more conformal than VMAT in certain cases. For the point dose measurements, the confidence limit (CLpoint) of 0.030 and 0.021 were better than the corresponding values of 0.045 and 0.047 given in the TG-119 report for high-dose and low-dose areas, respectively. Regarding the planar dose measurements, the CLplanar value of 0.38 obtained in this work was lower than that given in the TG-119 report (12.4). It is concluded that the dosimetry measurements performed in this study showed better confidence limits than those provided in the TG 119 report. IMRT remains more conformal in certain circumstances than the more progressive VMAT. When selecting the method of delivering a dose to the patient, several factors must be considered, including the radiotherapy technique, energy, treatment site, and tumour geometry.

Cardio-oncology concerns in radiotherapy: Heart and cardiac substructure toxicities from modern delivery techniques

Cardio-oncology is lately gaining more attention due to radiation-induced cardiac events reported by a very large number of studies. In view of this, the current overview of the literature aimed to encompass all studies from the past 15 years to assess changes in cardiac dose due to treatment evolution, as well as the changes in treatment planning customs to incorporate not only the heart as a whole but also cardiac substructures. Modern treatment techniques, particularly proton therapy, offers superior cardiac sparing compared to more established radiotherapy, for all evaluated tumor sites. Intensity modulation, particularly coupled with respiratory gating shows significant improvement in dose-volume parameters pertaining to the heart. While past studies considered mean heart dose as the only reference for cardiac toxicities, recommendations for the other cardiac substructures to be dosimetrically assessed during planning are becoming more common.

Dosimetric comparison of gamma knife and linear accelerator (VMAT and IMRT) plans of SBRT of Lung tumours

This study evaluates dosimetric differences in Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for lung tumors using plans of Gamma Knife, and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT), Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) plans based on Linear Accelerator, aiming to inform the reader of appropriate treatment strategy selection. Ten patients with 23 lung tumor lesions treated with SBRT at Zhongshan Hospital of Dalian University were analyzed. Plans of Gamma Knife, and VMAT, IMRT plans based on Linear Accelerator were created for each lesion, totaling 18 plans per type. Lesions were treated with 30-50 Gy in 5-10 fractions. Dosimetric parameters, including gradient index (GI), heterogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), and doses to the plan target volumes (PTVs), the gross tumor volumes (GTVs) and organs at risk (OARs) were compared. Plans of Gamma Knife showed superior HI and GI, higher PTV and GTV doses, and reduced doses to the ipsilateral and contralateral lungs, esophagus, spinal cord, and heart compared to VMAT and IMRT plans (p < 0.05). However, Plans of Gamma Knife required longer delivery times. When comparing VMAT and IMRT plans, VMAT plans had shorter delivery times than IMRT plans, but required more monitor units (MUs). Additionally, IMRT plans delivered a lower mean dose to the ipsilateral lung compared to VMAT plans. Gamma Knife SBRT plans achieves steeper dose falloff and minimizes radiation to normal lung tissue compared to VMAT and IMRT plans, but with longer delivery times. VMAT and IMRT plans displayed similar dose distributions for lung SBRT.

A comprehensive overview of radiation therapy impacts of various cancer treatments and pivotal role in the immune system

The cancer treatment landscape is significantly evolving, focusing on advanced radiation therapy methods to maximize effectiveness and minimize the adverse effects. Recognized as a pivotal component in cancer and disease treatment, radiation therapy (RT) has drawn attention in recent research that delves into its intricate interplay with inflammation and the immune response. This exploration unveils the underlying processes that significantly influence treatment outcomes. In this context, the potential advantages of combining bronchoscopy with RT across diverse clinical scenarios, alongside the targeted impact of brachytherapy, are explored. Concurrently, radiation treatments serve multifaceted roles such as DNA repair, cell elimination, and generating immune stress signaling molecules known as damage-associated molecular patterns, elucidating their effectiveness in treating various diseases. External beam RT introduces versatility by utilizing particles such as photons, electrons, protons, or carbon ions, each offering distinct advantages. Advanced RT techniques contribute to the evolving landscape, with emerging technologies like FLASH, spatially fractionated RT, and others poised to revolutionize the field. The comprehension of RT, striving for improved treatment outcomes, reduced side effects, and facilitating personalized and innovative treatments for cancer and noncancer patients. After navigating these advancements, the goal is fixed to usher in a new era in which RT is a cornerstone of precision and effectiveness in medical interventions. In summarizing the myriad findings, the review underscores the significance of understanding the differential impacts of radiation approaches on inflammation and immune modulation, offering valuable insights for developing innovative therapeutic interventions that harness the immune system in conjunction with RT.

Dosimetric comparison of five different radiotherapy treatment planning approaches for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer with sequential plan changes

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the dosimetric characteristics of five different treatment planning techniques for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) with sequential plan changes.

METHODS

A total of 13 stage III NSCLC patients were enrolled in this study. These patients had both computed tomography (CT) images for initial and boost treatment plans. The latter CT images were taken if tumor shrinkage was observed after 2 weeks of treatment. The prescription dose was 60 Gy/30 Fr (initial: 40 Gy/20 Fr, and boost: 20 Gy/10 Fr). Five techniques (forward-planed 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy [F-3DCRT] on both CT images, inverse-planned 3DCRT [I-3DCRT] on both CT images, volumetric modulated arc therapy [VMAT] on both CT images, F-3DCRT on initial CT plus VMAT on boost CT [bVMAT], and hybrid of fixed intensity-modulated radiotherapy [IMRT] beams and VMAT beams on both CT images [hybrid]) were recalculated for all patients. The accumulated doses between initial and boost plans were compared among all treatment techniques.

RESULTS

The conformity indexes (CI) of the planning target volume (PTV) of the five planning techniques were 0.34 ± 0.10, 0.57 ± 0.10, 0.86 ± 0.08, 0.61 ± 0.12, and 0.83 ± 0.11 for F-3DCRT, I-3DCRT, VMAT, bVMAT, and hybrid, respectively. In the same manner, lung volumes receiving >20 Gy (V20Gy ) were 21.05 ± 10.56%, 20.86 ± 6.45, 19.50 ± 7.38%, 19.98 ± 10.04%, and 17.74 ± 7.86%. There was significant improvement about CI and V20Gy for hybrid compared with F-3DCRT (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The IMRT/VMAT hybrid technique for LA-NSCLC patients improved target CI and reduced lung doses. Furthermore, if IMRT was not available initially, starting with 3DCRT might be beneficial as demonstrated in the bVMAT procedure of this study.

Comparison of photon intensity modulated, hybrid and volumetric modulated arc radiation treatment techniques in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Background and purpose

There is no consensus on the best photon radiation technique for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study quantified the differences between commonly used treatment techniques in NSCLC to find the optimal technique.

Materials and methods

Treatment plans were retrospectively generated according to clinical guidelines for 26 stage III NSCLC patients using intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), hybrid, and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMATC, and VMATV5 optimized for lower lung and heart dose). Plans were evaluated for target coverage, organs at risk dose (including heart substructures) and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP).

Results

The comparison showed significant and largest median differences (>1 Gy or >5%) in favor of IMRT for the mediastinal envelope and heart (maximum dose), in favor of the hybrid technique for the lungs (V5Gy of the total lungs and V5Gy of the contralateral lung) and in favor of VMATC for the heart (Dmean), most of the substructures of the heart, and the spinal cord (maximum dose). The VMATV5 technique had significantly lower heart dose compared to the hybrid technique and significantly lower lung dose compared to the VMATC, combining both advantages in one technique. The mean ΔNTCP did not exceed the 2 percent point (pp) for grade 5 (mortality), and 10 pp for grade ≥2 toxicities (radiation pneumonitis and acute esophageal toxicity), but ΔNTCP was mostly in favor of VMATC/V5 for individual patients.

Conclusion

This planning study showed that VMATV5 was preferred as it achieved low lung and heart doses, as well as low NTCPs, simultaneously.