J-Y Lu1, Z Lin1, P-X Lin2, B-T Huang1. 1. 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, China. 2. 2 Department of Nosocomial Infection Management, Second Affiliated Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To optimize the flattening filter-free (FFF) beam selection in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) treatment for Stage I lung cancer in different fraction schemes. METHODS: Treatment plans from 12 patients suffering from Stage I lung cancer were designed using the 6XFFF and 10XFFF beams in different fraction schemes of 4 × 12, 3 × 18 and 1 × 34 Gy. Plans were evaluated mainly in terms of organs at risk (OARs) sparing, normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) estimation and treatment efficiency. RESULTS: Compared with the 10XFFF beam, 6XFFF beam showed statistically significant lower dose to all the OARs investigated. The percentage of NTCP reduction for both lung and chest wall was about 10% in the fraction schemes of 4 × 12 and 3 × 18 Gy, whereas only 7.4% and 2.6% was obtained in the 1 × 34 Gy scheme. For oesophagus, heart and spinal cord, the reduction was greater with the 6XFFF beam, but their absolute estimates were <10(-6)%. The mean beam-on time for 6XFFF and 10XFFF beams at 4 × 12, 3 × 18 and 1 × 34 Gy schemes were 2.2 ± 0.2 vs 1.5 ± 0.1, 3.3 ± 0.9 vs 2.0 ± 0.5 and 6.3 ± 0.9 vs 3.5 ± 0.4 min, respectively. CONCLUSION: The 6XFFF beam obtains better OARs sparing and lower incidence of NTCP in SBRT treatment of Stage I lung cancer, whereas the 10XFFF beam improves the treatment efficiency. To balance the OARs sparing and intrafractional variation owing to the prolonged treatment time, the authors recommend using the 6XFFF beam in the 4 × 12 and 3 × 18 Gy schemes but the 10XFFF beam in the 1 × 34 Gy scheme. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study optimizes the FFF beam selection in different fraction schemes in SBRT treatment of Stage I lung cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To optimize the flattening filter-free (FFF) beam selection in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) treatment for Stage I lung cancer in different fraction schemes. METHODS: Treatment plans from 12 patients suffering from Stage I lung cancer were designed using the 6XFFF and 10XFFF beams in different fraction schemes of 4 × 12, 3 × 18 and 1 × 34 Gy. Plans were evaluated mainly in terms of organs at risk (OARs) sparing, normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) estimation and treatment efficiency. RESULTS: Compared with the 10XFFF beam, 6XFFF beam showed statistically significant lower dose to all the OARs investigated. The percentage of NTCP reduction for both lung and chest wall was about 10% in the fraction schemes of 4 × 12 and 3 × 18 Gy, whereas only 7.4% and 2.6% was obtained in the 1 × 34 Gy scheme. For oesophagus, heart and spinal cord, the reduction was greater with the 6XFFF beam, but their absolute estimates were <10(-6)%. The mean beam-on time for 6XFFF and 10XFFF beams at 4 × 12, 3 × 18 and 1 × 34 Gy schemes were 2.2 ± 0.2 vs 1.5 ± 0.1, 3.3 ± 0.9 vs 2.0 ± 0.5 and 6.3 ± 0.9 vs 3.5 ± 0.4 min, respectively. CONCLUSION: The 6XFFF beam obtains better OARs sparing and lower incidence of NTCP in SBRT treatment of Stage I lung cancer, whereas the 10XFFF beam improves the treatment efficiency. To balance the OARs sparing and intrafractional variation owing to the prolonged treatment time, the authors recommend using the 6XFFF beam in the 4 × 12 and 3 × 18 Gy schemes but the 10XFFF beam in the 1 × 34 Gy scheme. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study optimizes the FFF beam selection in different fraction schemes in SBRT treatment of Stage I lung cancer.
Authors: Neil M Woody; Gregory M M Videtic; Kevin L Stephans; Toufik Djemil; Yongbok Kim; Ping Xia Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-12-23 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: R Bryan Barriger; Jeffrey A Forquer; Jeffrey G Brabham; David L Andolino; Ronald H Shapiro; Mark A Henderson; Peter A S Johnstone; Achilles J Fakiris Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-10-29 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Chirag Shah; Inga S Grills; Larry L Kestin; Samuel McGrath; Hong Ye; Shannon K Martin; Di Yan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Oscar S H Chan; Michael C H Lee; Albert W M Hung; Amy T Y Chang; Rebecca M W Yeung; Anne W M Lee Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2011-09-08 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Thomas G Purdie; Jean-Pierre Bissonnette; Kevin Franks; Andrea Bezjak; David Payne; Fanny Sie; Michael B Sharpe; David A Jaffray Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-02-27 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Kevin L Stephans; Toufik Djemil; Rahul D Tendulkar; Cliff G Robinson; Chandana A Reddy; Gregory M M Videtic Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-02-06 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mischa S Hoogeman; Joost J Nuyttens; Peter C Levendag; Ben J M Heijmen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-11-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Frank J Lagerwaard; Cornelis J A Haasbeek; Egbert F Smit; Ben J Slotman; S Senan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-12-31 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Oleg N Vassiliev; Stephen F Kry; He C Wang; Christine B Peterson; Joe Y Chang; Radhe Mohan Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2018-09-28 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Barbara Dobler; Tina Obermeier; Matthias G Hautmann; Amine Khemissi; Oliver Koelbl Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 3.481