PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to investigate the influence of tumor motion on dose delivery in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for lung cancer, using fixed field intensity- modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: For each of 10 patients with stage I/II non-small-cell pulmonary tumors, a respiration-correlated four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) study was carried out. The internal target volume was delineated on the maximum intensity projection CT, which was reconstructed from the 4DCT dataset. A 5-mm margin was used for generation of the planning target volume. VMAT and five-field IMRT plans were generated using Pinnacle(3) SmartArc and direct machine parameter optimization, respectively. All plans were generated for an Elekta Synergy linear accelerator using 6-MV photons. Simulation was performed to study the interplay between multileaf collimator (MLC) sequences and target movement during the delivery of VMAT and IMRT. For each plan, 4D dose was calculated using deformable image registration of the 4DCT images. Target volume coverage and doses to critical structures calculated using 4D methodology were compared with those calculated using 3D methodology. RESULTS: For all patients included in this study, the interplay effect was found to present limited impact (less than 1% of prescription) on the target dose distribution, especially for SBRT, in which fewer fractions (three fractions) are delivered. Dose to the gross tumor volume (GTV) was, on average, slightly decreased (1% of prescription) in the 4D calculation compared with the 3D calculation. The motion impact on target dose homogeneity was patient-dependent and relatively small. CONCLUSIONS: Both VMAT and IMRT plans experienced negligible interplay effects between MLC sequence and tumor motion. For the most part, the 3D doses to the GTV and critical structures provided good approximations of the 4D dose calculations.
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to investigate the influence of tumor motion on dose delivery in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for lung cancer, using fixed field intensity- modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: For each of 10 patients with stage I/II non-small-cell pulmonary tumors, a respiration-correlated four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) study was carried out. The internal target volume was delineated on the maximum intensity projection CT, which was reconstructed from the 4DCT dataset. A 5-mm margin was used for generation of the planning target volume. VMAT and five-field IMRT plans were generated using Pinnacle(3) SmartArc and direct machine parameter optimization, respectively. All plans were generated for an Elekta Synergy linear accelerator using 6-MV photons. Simulation was performed to study the interplay between multileaf collimator (MLC) sequences and target movement during the delivery of VMAT and IMRT. For each plan, 4D dose was calculated using deformable image registration of the 4DCT images. Target volume coverage and doses to critical structures calculated using 4D methodology were compared with those calculated using 3D methodology. RESULTS: For all patients included in this study, the interplay effect was found to present limited impact (less than 1% of prescription) on the target dose distribution, especially for SBRT, in which fewer fractions (three fractions) are delivered. Dose to the gross tumor volume (GTV) was, on average, slightly decreased (1% of prescription) in the 4D calculation compared with the 3D calculation. The motion impact on target dose homogeneity was patient-dependent and relatively small. CONCLUSIONS: Both VMAT and IMRT plans experienced negligible interplay effects between MLC sequence and tumor motion. For the most part, the 3D doses to the GTV and critical structures provided good approximations of the 4D dose calculations.
Authors: Deepak Thaper; Arun S Oinam; Rose Kamal; Gaganpreet Singh; Bhumika Handa; Vivek Kumar; Hanuman P Yadav Journal: Phys Eng Sci Med Date: 2021-02-04
Authors: Y Tajima; H Nakayama; T Itonaga; S Shiraishi; M Okubo; R Mikami; S Sugahara; K Tokuuye Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Heng Li; Peter Park; Wei Liu; Jason Matney; Zhongxing Liao; Peter Balter; Yupeng Li; Xiaodong Zhang; Xiaoqiang Li; X Ronald Zhu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 4.071