PURPOSE: Local recurrence rates are high in patients with locally advanced NSCLC treated with 60 to 66 Gy in 2 Gy fractions. It is hypothesised that boosting volumes with high SUV on the pre-treatment FDG-PET scan potentially increases local control while maintaining acceptable toxicity levels. We compared two approaches: threshold-based dose painting by contours (DPBC) with voxel-based dose painting by numbers (DPBN). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two dose painted plans were generated for 10 stage II/III NSCLC patients with 66 Gy at 2-Gy fractions to the entire PTV and a boost dose to the high SUV areas within the primary GTV. DPBC aims for a uniform boost dose at the volume encompassing the SUV 50%-region (GTV(boost)). DPBN aims for a linear relationship between the boost dose to a voxel and the underlying SUV. For both approaches the boost dose was escalated up to 130 Gy (in 33 fractions) or until the dose limiting constraint of an organ at risk was met. RESULTS: For three patients (with relatively small peripheral tumours) the dose within the GTV could be boosted to 130 Gy using both strategies. For the remaining patients the boost dose was confined by a critical structure (mediastinal structures in six patients, lungs in one patient). In general the amount of large brush DPBC boosting is limited whenever the GTV(boost) is close to any serial risk organ. In contrast, small brush DPBN inherently boosts at a voxel-by-voxel basis allowing significant higher dose values to high SUV voxels more distant from the organs at risk. We found that the biological SUV gradients are reasonably congruent with the dose gradients that standard linear accelerators can deliver. CONCLUSIONS: Both large brush DPBC and sharp brush DPBN techniques can be used to considerably boost the dose to the FDG avid regions. However, significantly higher boost levels can be obtained using sharp brush DPBN although sometimes at the cost of a less increased dose to the low SUV regions.
PURPOSE: Local recurrence rates are high in patients with locally advanced NSCLC treated with 60 to 66 Gy in 2 Gy fractions. It is hypothesised that boosting volumes with high SUV on the pre-treatment FDG-PET scan potentially increases local control while maintaining acceptable toxicity levels. We compared two approaches: threshold-based dose painting by contours (DPBC) with voxel-based dose painting by numbers (DPBN). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two dose painted plans were generated for 10 stage II/III NSCLCpatients with 66 Gy at 2-Gy fractions to the entire PTV and a boost dose to the high SUV areas within the primary GTV. DPBC aims for a uniform boost dose at the volume encompassing the SUV 50%-region (GTV(boost)). DPBN aims for a linear relationship between the boost dose to a voxel and the underlying SUV. For both approaches the boost dose was escalated up to 130 Gy (in 33 fractions) or until the dose limiting constraint of an organ at risk was met. RESULTS: For three patients (with relatively small peripheral tumours) the dose within the GTV could be boosted to 130 Gy using both strategies. For the remaining patients the boost dose was confined by a critical structure (mediastinal structures in six patients, lungs in one patient). In general the amount of large brush DPBC boosting is limited whenever the GTV(boost) is close to any serial risk organ. In contrast, small brush DPBN inherently boosts at a voxel-by-voxel basis allowing significant higher dose values to high SUV voxels more distant from the organs at risk. We found that the biological SUV gradients are reasonably congruent with the dose gradients that standard linear accelerators can deliver. CONCLUSIONS: Both large brush DPBC and sharp brush DPBN techniques can be used to considerably boost the dose to the FDG avid regions. However, significantly higher boost levels can be obtained using sharp brush DPBN although sometimes at the cost of a less increased dose to the low SUV regions.
Authors: Malene Martini Clausen; Anders Elias Hansen; Michael Lundemann; Christian Hollensen; Tobias Pommer; Per Munck Af Rosenschöld; Annemarie Thuri Kristensen; Andreas Kjær; Fintan J McEvoy; Svend Aage Engelholm Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Malene M Clausen; Anders E Hansen; Per Munck Af Rosenschold; Andreas Kjaer; Annemarie T Kristensen; Fintan J McEvoy; Svend A Engelholm Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2013-11-07 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Wouter van Elmpt; Catharina M L Zegers; Bart Reymen; Aniek J G Even; Anne-Marie C Dingemans; Michel Oellers; Joachim E Wildberger; Felix M Mottaghy; Marco Das; Esther G C Troost; Philippe Lambin Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-09-04 Impact factor: 9.236