Literature DB >> 24007143

Experimentally studied dynamic dose interplay does not meaningfully affect target dose in VMAT SBRT lung treatments.

Cassandra Stambaugh1, Benjamin E Nelms, Thomas Dilling, Craig Stevens, Kujtim Latifi, Geoffrey Zhang, Eduardo Moros, Vladimir Feygelman.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The effects of respiratory motion on the tumor dose can be divided into the gradient and interplay effects. While the interplay effect is likely to average out over a large number of fractions, it may play a role in hypofractionated [stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT)] treatments. This subject has been extensively studied for intensity modulated radiation therapy but less so for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), particularly in application to hypofractionated regimens. Also, no experimental study has provided full four-dimensional (4D) dose reconstruction in this scenario. The authors demonstrate how a recently described motion perturbation method, with full 4D dose reconstruction, is applied to describe the gradient and interplay effects during VMAT lung SBRT treatments.
METHODS: VMAT dose delivered to a moving target in a patient can be reconstructed by applying perturbations to the treatment planning system-calculated static 3D dose. Ten SBRT patients treated with 6 MV VMAT beams in five fractions were selected. The target motion (motion kernel) was approximated by 3D rigid body translation, with the tumor centroids defined on the ten phases of the 4DCT. The motion was assumed to be periodic, with the period T being an average from the empirical 4DCT respiratory trace. The real observed tumor motion (total displacement ≤ 8 mm) was evaluated first. Then, the motion range was artificially increased to 2 or 3 cm. Finally, T was increased to 60 s. While not realistic, making T comparable to the delivery time elucidates if the interplay effect can be observed. For a single fraction, the authors quantified the interplay effect as the maximum difference in the target dosimetric indices, most importantly the near-minimum dose (D99%), between all possible starting phases. For the three- and five-fractions, statistical simulations were performed when substantial interplay was found.
RESULTS: For the motion amplitudes and periods obtained from the 4DCT, the interplay effect is negligible (<0.2%). It is also small (0.9% average, 2.2% maximum) when the target excursion increased to 2-3 cm. Only with large motion and increased period (60 s) was a significant interplay effect observed, with D99% ranging from 16% low to 17% high. The interplay effect was statistically significantly lower for the three- and five-fraction statistical simulations. Overall, the gradient effect dominates the clinical situation.
CONCLUSIONS: A novel method was used to reconstruct the volumetric dose to a moving tumor during lung SBRT VMAT deliveries. With the studied planning and treatment technique for realistic motion periods, regardless of the amplitude, the interplay has nearly no impact on the near-minimum dose. The interplay effect was observed, for study purposes only, with the period comparable to the VMAT delivery time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24007143     DOI: 10.1118/1.4818255

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  24 in total

1.  Safety and benefit of using a virtual bolus during treatment planning for breast cancer treated with arc therapy.

Authors:  Marguerite Tyran; Agnes Tallet; Michel Resbeut; Marjorie Ferre; Veronique Favrel; Pierre Fau; Laurence Moureau-Zabotto; Julien Darreon; Laurence Gonzague; Ahcene Benkemouche; Leonel Varela-Cagetti; Naji Salem; Bertrand Farnault; Marie-Aimee Acquaviva; Hugues Mailleux
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2018-06-30       Impact factor: 2.102

2.  Motion management strategies and technical issues associated with stereotactic body radiotherapy of thoracic and upper abdominal tumors: A review from NRG oncology.

Authors:  Edward D Brandner; Indrin J Chetty; Tawfik G Giaddui; Ying Xiao; M Saiful Huq
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-04-20       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Under-reported dosimetry errors due to interplay effects during VMAT dose delivery in extreme hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy.

Authors:  Tobias Gauer; Thilo Sothmann; Oliver Blanck; Cordula Petersen; René Werner
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2018-02-15       Impact factor: 3.621

4.  Investigation of 4D dose in volumetric modulated arc therapy-based stereotactic body radiation therapy: does fractional dose or number of arcs matter?

Authors:  Takashi Shintani; Mitsuhiro Nakamura; Yukinori Matsuo; Yuki Miyabe; Nobutaka Mukumoto; Takamasa Mitsuyoshi; Yusuke Iizuka; Takashi Mizowaki
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2020-03-23       Impact factor: 2.724

5.  Evaluation of the target dose coverage of stereotactic body radiotherapy for lung cancer using helical tomotherapy: A dynamic phantom study.

Authors:  Masahide Saito; Hidekazu Suzuki; Naoki Sano; Kazunari Ashizawa; Kazuya Yoshizawa; Yuki Shibata; Koji Ueda; Takafumi Komiyama; Kan Marino; Shinichi Aoki; Ryo Saito; Yoshiyasu Maehata; Hiroshi Onishi
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2020-01-14

6.  SBRT treatment of multiple extracranial oligometastases using a single isocenter with distinct optimizations.

Authors:  Michael Trager; Joseph Salama; Fang-Fang Yin; Justus Adamson
Journal:  J Radiosurg SBRT       Date:  2017

7.  Dynamic simulation of motion effects in IMAT lung SBRT.

Authors:  Wei Zou; Lingshu Yin; Jiajian Shen; Michael N Corradetti; Maura Kirk; Reshma Munbodh; Penny Fang; Salma K Jabbour; Charles B Simone; Ning J Yue; Ramesh Rengan; Boon-Keng Kevin Teo
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2014-11-01       Impact factor: 3.481

8.  A comparison of three different VMAT techniques for the delivery of lung stereotactic ablative radiation therapy.

Authors:  Rhys Fitzgerald; Rebecca Owen; Catriona Hargrave; David Pryor; Tamara Barry; Margot Lehman; Anne Bernard; Tao Mai; Venkatakrishnan Seshadri; Andrew Fielding
Journal:  J Med Radiat Sci       Date:  2016-01-20

9.  On the robustness of VMAT-SABR treatment plans against isocentre positioning uncertainties.

Authors:  Joep Stroom; Sandra Vieira; Dalila Mateus; Carlo Greco; Antonella Fogliata; Giorgia Nicolini; Alessandro Clivio; Eugenio Vanetti; Luca Cozzi
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2014-09-05       Impact factor: 3.481

10.  VMAT-SBRT planning based on an average intensity projection for lung tumors located in close proximity to the diaphragm: a phantom and clinical validity study.

Authors:  Shingo Ohira; Yoshihiro Ueda; Misaki Hashimoto; Masayoshi Miyazaki; Masaru Isono; Hiroshi Kamikaseda; Akira Masaoka; Masaaki Takashina; Masahiko Koizumi; Teruki Teshima
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2015-09-28       Impact factor: 2.724

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.