PURPOSE: The goal of this work was to evaluate the potential benefit of deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) compared to free breathing (FB) radiotherapy in a homogeneous population of patients with lung cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 25 patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated by DIBH underwent an additional FB CT scan. The DIBH and FB treatment plans were compared. Target volume was compared using coverage, homogeneity, and conformal indices. Organs at risk were compared using V(5), V(13), V(20), V(25), V(37), mean dose (D(mean)) for lungs, V(40) and D(mean) for the heart, V(50), D(mean) and maximum dose (D(max)) for the esophagus, and using biological indices, i.e., the equivalent uniform dose (EUD) and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP). RESULTS: Median age was 62 years. Prescribed total dose was 66 Gy. Conformity index was improved with DIBH (0.67 vs. 0.58, p = 0.046) but coverage and homogeneity indices were not significantly different. Lung dosimetric parameters were improved using DIBH: D(mean) (13 vs. 15 Gy, p = 10(-4)), V(5) (43 vs. 51%, p = 6.10(-5)), V(13) (31 vs. 38%, p = 2.10(-3)), V(20) (25 vs. 31%, p = 0.01), V(25) (22% vs. 27%, p = 0.01) and V(37) (12 vs. 16%, p = 0.03), EUD (8.2 vs. 9.9 Gy, p = 3.10(-4)), and NTCP (1.9 vs. 4.8%, p = 10(-3)). For the heart, D(mean) (14 vs. 17 Gy, p = 0.003), V(40) (12 vs. 17%, p = 0.004), and EUD (19 vs. 22 Gy, p = 6.10(-4)) were reduced with DIBH, whereas V(30) and NTCP were similar. DIBH improved the D(mean) (28 vs. 30 Gy, p = 0.007) and V(50) (25 vs. 30%, p = 0.003) for the esophagus, while EUD, NTCP, and D(max) were not altered. CONCLUSION: DIBH improves the target conformity index and heart and lung dosimetry in lung cancer patients treated with radiotherapy. The clinical implications of these findings should be confirmed.
PURPOSE: The goal of this work was to evaluate the potential benefit of deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) compared to free breathing (FB) radiotherapy in a homogeneous population of patients with lung cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 25 patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated by DIBH underwent an additional FB CT scan. The DIBH and FB treatment plans were compared. Target volume was compared using coverage, homogeneity, and conformal indices. Organs at risk were compared using V(5), V(13), V(20), V(25), V(37), mean dose (D(mean)) for lungs, V(40) and D(mean) for the heart, V(50), D(mean) and maximum dose (D(max)) for the esophagus, and using biological indices, i.e., the equivalent uniform dose (EUD) and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP). RESULTS: Median age was 62 years. Prescribed total dose was 66 Gy. Conformity index was improved with DIBH (0.67 vs. 0.58, p = 0.046) but coverage and homogeneity indices were not significantly different. Lung dosimetric parameters were improved using DIBH: D(mean) (13 vs. 15 Gy, p = 10(-4)), V(5) (43 vs. 51%, p = 6.10(-5)), V(13) (31 vs. 38%, p = 2.10(-3)), V(20) (25 vs. 31%, p = 0.01), V(25) (22% vs. 27%, p = 0.01) and V(37) (12 vs. 16%, p = 0.03), EUD (8.2 vs. 9.9 Gy, p = 3.10(-4)), and NTCP (1.9 vs. 4.8%, p = 10(-3)). For the heart, D(mean) (14 vs. 17 Gy, p = 0.003), V(40) (12 vs. 17%, p = 0.004), and EUD (19 vs. 22 Gy, p = 6.10(-4)) were reduced with DIBH, whereas V(30) and NTCP were similar. DIBH improved the D(mean) (28 vs. 30 Gy, p = 0.007) and V(50) (25 vs. 30%, p = 0.003) for the esophagus, while EUD, NTCP, and D(max) were not altered. CONCLUSION:DIBH improves the target conformity index and heart and lung dosimetry in lung cancerpatients treated with radiotherapy. The clinical implications of these findings should be confirmed.
Authors: Ellen D Yorke; Lu Wang; Kenneth E Rosenzweig; Dennis Mah; Jean-Baptiste Paoli; Chen-Shou Chui Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Olivier Chapet; Emma Thomas; Marc L Kessler; Benedick A Fraass; Randall K Ten Haken Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ellen D Yorke; Andrew Jackson; Kenneth E Rosenzweig; Louise Braban; Steven A Leibel; C Clifton Ling Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-06-04 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Kristina Kontrisova; Markus Stock; Karin Dieckmann; Joachim Bogner; Richard Pötter; Dietmar Georg Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2006-09-08 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: K Kubota; K Furuse; M Kawahara; N Kodama; M Yamamoto; M Ogawara; S Negoro; N Masuda; M Takada; K Matsui Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1994-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Wendy Harris; Ellen Yorke; Henry Li; Christian Czmielewski; Mohit Chawla; Robert P Lee; Alexandra Hotca-Cho; Dominique McKnight; Andreas Rimner; D Michael Lovelock Journal: Med Phys Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Markus Oechsner; Barbara Chizzali; Michal Devecka; Stefan Münch; Stephanie Elisabeth Combs; Jan Jakob Wilkens; Marciana Nona Duma Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Dennis Mah; Ellen Yorke; Entela Zemanaj; Zhiqiang Han; Haoyang Liu; Jobin George; Jason Lambiase; Christian Czmielewski; D Michael Lovelock; Andreas Rimner; Annemarie F Shepherd Journal: Med Dosim Date: 2021-08-21 Impact factor: 1.531
Authors: Frederick R Bartlett; Ruth M Colgan; Ellen M Donovan; Karen Carr; Steven Landeg; Nicola Clements; Helen A McNair; Imogen Locke; Philip M Evans; Joanne S Haviland; John R Yarnold; Anna M Kirby Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2014-07-03 Impact factor: 1.355
Authors: Mirjana Josipovic; Marianne C Aznar; Jakob B Thomsen; Jonas Scherman; Sidsel Ms Damkjaer; Lotte Nygård; Lena Specht; Mette Pøhl; Gitte F Persson Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-09-26 Impact factor: 3.039