Michael B Liu1, Neville C W Eclov1, Nicholas Trakul1, James Murphy1, Maximilian Diehn2, Quynh-Thu Le3, Sonja Dieterich4, Peter G Maxim5, Billy W Loo6. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, Davis, California. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. Electronic address: peter.maxim@Stanford.edu. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. Electronic address: BWLoo@Stanford.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the clinical impact of calculated dose differences between effective path length (EPL) and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms in stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) of lung tumors. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively analyzed the treatment plans and clinical outcomes of 77 consecutive patients treated with SABR for 82 lung tumors between 2003 and 2009 at our institution. Sixty treatments were originally planned using EPL, and 22 using MC. All plans were recalculated for the same beam specifications using MC and EPL, respectively. The doses covering 95%, 50%, and 5% (D95, D50, D5, respectively) of the target volumes were compared between EPL and MC (assumed to be the actual delivered dose), both as physical dose and biologically effective dose. Time to local recurrence was correlated with dose by Cox regression analysis. The relationship between tumor control probability (TCP) and biologically effective dose was determined via logistic regression and used to estimate the TCP decrements due to prescribing by EPL calculations. RESULTS: EPL overestimated dose compared with MC in all tumor dose-volume histogram parameters in all plans. The difference was >10% of the MC D95 to the planning target volume and gross tumor volume in 60 of 82 (73%) and 52 of 82 plans (63%), respectively. Local recurrence occurred in 13 of 82 tumors. Controlling for gross tumor volume, higher physical and biologically effective planning target volume D95 correlated significantly with local control (P = .007 and P = .045, respectively). Compared with MC, prescribing based on EPL translated to a median TCP decrement of 4.3% (range, 1.2%-37%) and a >5% decrement in 46% of tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical follow-up for local lung tumor control in a sizable cohort of patients treated with SABR demonstrates that EPL overestimates dose by amounts that substantially decrease TCP in a large proportion. EPL algorithms should be avoided for lung tumor SABR. Published by Elsevier Inc.
PURPOSE: To determine the clinical impact of calculated dose differences between effective path length (EPL) and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms in stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) of lung tumors. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively analyzed the treatment plans and clinical outcomes of 77 consecutive patients treated with SABR for 82 lung tumors between 2003 and 2009 at our institution. Sixty treatments were originally planned using EPL, and 22 using MC. All plans were recalculated for the same beam specifications using MC and EPL, respectively. The doses covering 95%, 50%, and 5% (D95, D50, D5, respectively) of the target volumes were compared between EPL and MC (assumed to be the actual delivered dose), both as physical dose and biologically effective dose. Time to local recurrence was correlated with dose by Cox regression analysis. The relationship between tumor control probability (TCP) and biologically effective dose was determined via logistic regression and used to estimate the TCP decrements due to prescribing by EPL calculations. RESULTS: EPL overestimated dose compared with MC in all tumor dose-volume histogram parameters in all plans. The difference was >10% of the MC D95 to the planning target volume and gross tumor volume in 60 of 82 (73%) and 52 of 82 plans (63%), respectively. Local recurrence occurred in 13 of 82 tumors. Controlling for gross tumor volume, higher physical and biologically effective planning target volume D95 correlated significantly with local control (P = .007 and P = .045, respectively). Compared with MC, prescribing based on EPL translated to a median TCP decrement of 4.3% (range, 1.2%-37%) and a >5% decrement in 46% of tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical follow-up for local lung tumor control in a sizable cohort of patients treated with SABR demonstrates that EPL overestimates dose by amounts that substantially decrease TCP in a large proportion. EPL algorithms should be avoided for lung tumorSABR. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Jeho Jeong; Jung Hun Oh; Jan-Jakob Sonke; Jose Belderbos; Jeffrey D Bradley; Andrew N Fontanella; Shyam S Rao; Joseph O Deasy Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-05-24 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Nicolas D Prionas; Rie von Eyben; Esther Yi; Sonya Aggarwal; Jenny Shaffer; Jose Bazan; David Eastham; Peter G Maxim; Edward E Graves; Maximilian Diehn; Michael F Gensheimer; Billy W Loo Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-11-26
Authors: Karine A Al Feghali; Qixue Charles Wu; Suneetha Devpura; Chang Liu; Ahmed I Ghanem; Ning Winston Wen; Munther Ajlouni; Michael J Simoff; Benjamin Movsas; Indrin J Chetty Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-02-11