PURPOSE: To compare five liver metastasis stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) plans optimised in fourteen centres with 3D-Conformal-RT, IMRT, VMAT, CyberKnife and Tomotherapy and identify possible dosimetric differences. METHODS: Dose prescription was 75 Gy in 3 fractions, normalised at 67%-95% isodose. RESULTS: Excluding few cases, all institutions achieved the planning objectives. Differences up to 40% and 25% in mean dose to liver and PTV were found. No significant correlations between technological factors and DVH for target and OARs were observed; the optimisation strategies selected by the planners played a key role in the planning procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The human factor and the constraints imposed to the target volume have a greater dosimetric impact than treatment planning and radiation delivery technology in stereotactic treatment of liver metastases. Significant differences found both in terms of dosimetric target coverage and OAR sparing should be taken into consideration before starting a multi-institutional SARB clinical trial.
PURPOSE: To compare five liver metastasis stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) plans optimised in fourteen centres with 3D-Conformal-RT, IMRT, VMAT, CyberKnife and Tomotherapy and identify possible dosimetric differences. METHODS: Dose prescription was 75 Gy in 3 fractions, normalised at 67%-95% isodose. RESULTS: Excluding few cases, all institutions achieved the planning objectives. Differences up to 40% and 25% in mean dose to liver and PTV were found. No significant correlations between technological factors and DVH for target and OARs were observed; the optimisation strategies selected by the planners played a key role in the planning procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The human factor and the constraints imposed to the target volume have a greater dosimetric impact than treatment planning and radiation delivery technology in stereotactic treatment of liver metastases. Significant differences found both in terms of dosimetric target coverage and OAR sparing should be taken into consideration before starting a multi-institutional SARB clinical trial.
Authors: André Toussaint; Anne Richter; Frederick Mantel; John C Flickinger; Inga Siiner Grills; Neelam Tyagi; Arjun Sahgal; Daniel Letourneau; Jason P Sheehan; David J Schlesinger; Peter Carlos Gerszten; Matthias Guckenberger Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2016-04-18 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Nicolaus Andratschke; Alan Parys; Susanne Stadtfeld; Stefan Wurster; Stefan Huttenlocher; Detlef Imhoff; Müjdat Yildirim; Dirk Rades; Claus Michael Rödel; Jürgen Dunst; Guido Hildebrandt; Oliver Blanck Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2016-05-28 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Federico Pessina; Pierina Navarria; Luca Cozzi; Anna Maria Ascolese; Giulia Maggi; Marco Riva; Giovanna Masci; Giuseppe D'Agostino; Giovanna Finocchiaro; Armando Santoro; Lorenzo Bello; Marta Scorsetti Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-06-27 Impact factor: 3.240