Tong Bai1, Jian Zhu1, Yong Yin1, Jie Lu1, Huazhong Shu2, Lin Wang3, Bo Yang3. 1. Department of Radiation Physics, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute Jinan, China; Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology Jinan, China. 2. Laboratory of Image Science and Technology, Southeast University Nanjing, China. 3. Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Network based Intelligent Computing, University of Jinan Jinan, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To investigate how the four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) technique spares normal tissues in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) radiotherapy by defining individualized internal target volume (ITV). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Gross tumor volume (GTV) and clinical target volume (CTV) were contoured on all 10 respiratory phases of 4DCT scans in 10 patients with peripheral NSCLC. Both 3D and 4D treatment plans were performed for each patient using planning target volume (PTV)3D (derived from a single CTV plus conventional margins) and PTV4D (derived from 4D internal target volume, which included all 10 CTVs plus setup margins). Dose volume histogram and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) values were compared for the lung, heart, and spinal cord between 3D and 4D treatment plans. RESULTS: The average PTV of the 4D (127.56 ± 70.79) was less than the 3D plans (147.65 ± 76.89). The 4D spared more surrounding normal tissues than the 3D plans, especially in the lung. Compared with 3D plans, V5, V10, V20 and V30 of the total lung decreased from 41.25%, 37.75%, 24.25%, 17.00% to 38.13%, 33.00%, 21.25%, 15.13%, respectively. Without increasing the NTCP of the lung significantly, the 4D plans allowed us to increase the average prescription dose from 60 Gy to 66.00 ± 4.62 Gy. CONCLUSIONS: 4DCT based plans can reduce the target volumes, spare more normal tissues, and allow dose escalation compared with 3D plans in NSCLC radiotherapy.
BACKGROUND: To investigate how the four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) technique spares normal tissues in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) radiotherapy by defining individualized internal target volume (ITV). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Gross tumor volume (GTV) and clinical target volume (CTV) were contoured on all 10 respiratory phases of 4DCT scans in 10 patients with peripheral NSCLC. Both 3D and 4D treatment plans were performed for each patient using planning target volume (PTV)3D (derived from a single CTV plus conventional margins) and PTV4D (derived from 4D internal target volume, which included all 10 CTVs plus setup margins). Dose volume histogram and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) values were compared for the lung, heart, and spinal cord between 3D and 4D treatment plans. RESULTS: The average PTV of the 4D (127.56 ± 70.79) was less than the 3D plans (147.65 ± 76.89). The 4D spared more surrounding normal tissues than the 3D plans, especially in the lung. Compared with 3D plans, V5, V10, V20 and V30 of the total lung decreased from 41.25%, 37.75%, 24.25%, 17.00% to 38.13%, 33.00%, 21.25%, 15.13%, respectively. Without increasing the NTCP of the lung significantly, the 4D plans allowed us to increase the average prescription dose from 60 Gy to 66.00 ± 4.62 Gy. CONCLUSIONS: 4DCT based plans can reduce the target volumes, spare more normal tissues, and allow dose escalation compared with 3D plans in NSCLC radiotherapy.
Entities:
Keywords:
4DCT; dosimetry; internal target volume; non-small cell lung cancer; normal tissue complication probability
Authors: Peter Goldstraw; David Ball; James R Jett; Thierry Le Chevalier; Eric Lim; Andrew G Nicholson; Frances A Shepherd Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-05-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Mitchell Machtay; Kyounghwa Bae; Benjamin Movsas; Rebecca Paulus; Elizabeth M Gore; Ritsuko Komaki; Kathy Albain; William T Sause; Walter J Curran Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-10-25 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Eike Rietzel; Arthur K Liu; Karen P Doppke; John A Wolfgang; Aileen B Chen; George T Y Chen; Noah C Choi Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: René W M Underberg; Frank J Lagerwaard; Ben J Slotman; Johan P Cuijpers; Suresh Senan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Paul J Keall; Sarang Joshi; S Sastry Vedam; Jeffrey V Siebers; Vijaykumar R Kini; Radhe Mohan Journal: Med Phys Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Benjamin J Rich; Benjamin O Spieler; Yidong Yang; Lori Young; William Amestoy; Maria Monterroso; Lora Wang; Alan Dal Pra; Fei Yang Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-07-22 Impact factor: 5.738