OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the dosimetry of compensator intensity modulation-based stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) [non-coplanar intensity-modulated radiotherapy (ncIMRT)], its use was compared with that of three-dimensional conformation-based SBRT, for patients with Stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: 21 consecutive patients with Stage I NSCLC were treated with ncIMRT or SBRT at Tokyo Medical University. To compare the two techniques, ncIMRT and SBRT plans for each patient were generated, where the planning target volume (PTV) coverages were adjusted to be equivalent to each other. The prescribed dose was set as 75 Gy in 30 fractions. PTV coverage, conformity index, conformation number (CN) and homogeneity index (HI) were used to compare the two strategies. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between PTV coverage for the 100%, 95% and 90% dose levels in the SBRT plan and those in the ncIMRT plan. The CN values were 0.53 ± 0.13 in the SBRT plan and 0.72 ± 0.10 in the ncIMRT plan. These values were significantly better than those of the SBRT plan (p < 0.001). The HI in the ncIMRT plan was 1.04 ± 0.03%, which was also significantly better than that of SBRT. CONCLUSION: The ncIMRT plan provided superior conformity and reduced the doses to the lung for patients with Stage I NSCLC. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The delivery technique with compensator intensity modulation-based SBRT was evaluated. Concerning target motion, this is thought to be more robust and safer than SBRT for early-stage NSCLC.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the dosimetry of compensator intensity modulation-based stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) [non-coplanar intensity-modulated radiotherapy (ncIMRT)], its use was compared with that of three-dimensional conformation-based SBRT, for patients with Stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: 21 consecutive patients with Stage I NSCLC were treated with ncIMRT or SBRT at Tokyo Medical University. To compare the two techniques, ncIMRT and SBRT plans for each patient were generated, where the planning target volume (PTV) coverages were adjusted to be equivalent to each other. The prescribed dose was set as 75 Gy in 30 fractions. PTV coverage, conformity index, conformation number (CN) and homogeneity index (HI) were used to compare the two strategies. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between PTV coverage for the 100%, 95% and 90% dose levels in the SBRT plan and those in the ncIMRT plan. The CN values were 0.53 ± 0.13 in the SBRT plan and 0.72 ± 0.10 in the ncIMRT plan. These values were significantly better than those of the SBRT plan (p < 0.001). The HI in the ncIMRT plan was 1.04 ± 0.03%, which was also significantly better than that of SBRT. CONCLUSION: The ncIMRT plan provided superior conformity and reduced the doses to the lung for patients with Stage I NSCLC. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The delivery technique with compensator intensity modulation-based SBRT was evaluated. Concerning target motion, this is thought to be more robust and safer than SBRT for early-stage NSCLC.
Authors: Michael T Vest; Jeph Herrin; Pamela R Soulos; Roy H Decker; Lynn Tanoue; Gaetane Michaud; Anthony W Kim; Frank Detterbeck; Daniel Morgensztern; Cary P Gross Journal: Chest Date: 2013-02-01 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Alexander Chi; Pan Ma; Guishan Fu; Gerry Hobbs; James S Welsh; Nam P Nguyen; Si Young Jang; Jinrong Dai; Jing Jin; Ritsuko Komaki Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-04-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sha X Chang; Timothy J Cullip; Katharin M Deschesne; Elizabeth P Miller; Julian G Rosenman Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2004-07-01 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Dan Nguyen; Dan Ruan; Daniel O'Connor; Kaley Woods; Daniel A Low; Salime Boucher; Ke Sheng Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 4.071