Jan Unkelbach1, Dávid Papp2, Melissa R Gaddy2, Nicolaus Andratschke3, Theodore Hong4, Matthias Guckenberger3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich, Switzerland. Electronic address: jan.unkelbach@usz.ch. 2. Department of Mathematics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich, Switzerland. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Dose prescription in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for liver tumors is often limited by the mean liver dose. We explore the concept of spatiotemporal fractionation as an approach to facilitate further dose escalation in liver SBRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Spatiotemporal fractionation schemes aim at partial hypofractionation in the tumor along with near-uniform fractionation in normal tissues. This is achieved by delivering distinct dose distributions in different fractions, which are designed such that each fraction delivers a high single fraction dose to complementary parts of the tumor while creating a similar dose bath in the surrounding noninvolved liver. Thereby, higher biologically effective doses (BED) can be delivered to the tumor without increasing the mean BED in the liver. Planning of such treatments is performed by simultaneously optimizing multiple dose distributions based on their cumulative BED. We study this concept for five liver cancer patients with different tumor geometries. RESULTS: Spatiotemporal fractionation presents a method of increasing the ratio of prescribed tumor BED to mean BED in the noninvolved liver by approximately 10-20%, compared to conventional SBRT using identical fractions. CONCLUSIONS: Spatiotemporal fractionation may reduce the risk of liver toxicity or facilitate dose escalation in liver SBRT in circumstances where the mean dose to the non-involved liver is the prescription-limiting factor.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Dose prescription in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for liver tumors is often limited by the mean liver dose. We explore the concept of spatiotemporal fractionation as an approach to facilitate further dose escalation in liver SBRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Spatiotemporal fractionation schemes aim at partial hypofractionation in the tumor along with near-uniform fractionation in normal tissues. This is achieved by delivering distinct dose distributions in different fractions, which are designed such that each fraction delivers a high single fraction dose to complementary parts of the tumor while creating a similar dose bath in the surrounding noninvolved liver. Thereby, higher biologically effective doses (BED) can be delivered to the tumor without increasing the mean BED in the liver. Planning of such treatments is performed by simultaneously optimizing multiple dose distributions based on their cumulative BED. We study this concept for five liver cancerpatients with different tumor geometries. RESULTS: Spatiotemporal fractionation presents a method of increasing the ratio of prescribed tumor BED to mean BED in the noninvolved liver by approximately 10-20%, compared to conventional SBRT using identical fractions. CONCLUSIONS: Spatiotemporal fractionation may reduce the risk of liver toxicity or facilitate dose escalation in liver SBRT in circumstances where the mean dose to the non-involved liver is the prescription-limiting factor.
Authors: Charlie C Pan; Brian D Kavanagh; Laura A Dawson; X Allen Li; Shiva K Das; Moyed Miften; Randall K Ten Haken Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: B W Raaymakers; J J W Lagendijk; J Overweg; J G M Kok; A J E Raaijmakers; E M Kerkhof; R W van der Put; I Meijsing; S P M Crijns; F Benedosso; M van Vulpen; C H W de Graaff; J Allen; K J Brown Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2009-05-19 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: R J Klement; M Guckenberger; H Alheid; M Allgäuer; G Becker; O Blanck; J Boda-Heggemann; T Brunner; M Duma; S Gerum; D Habermehl; G Hildebrandt; V Lewitzki; C Ostheimer; A Papachristofilou; C Petersen; T Schneider; R Semrau; S Wachter; N Andratschke Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2017-03-06 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Daniel T Chang; Anand Swaminath; Margaret Kozak; Julie Weintraub; Albert C Koong; John Kim; Rob Dinniwell; James Brierley; Brian D Kavanagh; Laura A Dawson; Tracey E Schefter Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-03-22 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Simon S Lo; Laura A Dawson; Edward Y Kim; Nina A Mayr; Jian Z Wang; Zhibin Huang; Higinia R Cardenes Journal: Discov Med Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 2.970
Authors: Jeremy T Booth; Vincent Caillet; Nicholas Hardcastle; Ricky O'Brien; Kathryn Szymura; Charlene Crasta; Benjamin Harris; Carol Haddad; Thomas Eade; Paul J Keall Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2016-09-17 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Emma Colvill; Jeremy Booth; Simeon Nill; Martin Fast; James Bedford; Uwe Oelfke; Mitsuhiro Nakamura; Per Poulsen; Esben Worm; Rune Hansen; Thomas Ravkilde; Jonas Scherman Rydhög; Tobias Pommer; Per Munck Af Rosenschold; Stephanie Lang; Matthias Guckenberger; Christian Groh; Christian Herrmann; Dirk Verellen; Kenneth Poels; Lei Wang; Michael Hadsell; Thilo Sothmann; Oliver Blanck; Paul Keall Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2016-03-22 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Juan Carlos López Alfonso; Shireen Parsai; Nikhil Joshi; Andrew Godley; Chirag Shah; Shlomo A Koyfman; Jimmy J Caudell; Clifton D Fuller; Heiko Enderling; Jacob G Scott Journal: Med Phys Date: 2018-06-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Shireen Parsai; Richard L J Qiu; Peng Qi; Juan C L Alfonso; Jeremy Donaghue; Eric Murray; David Majkszak; Nicole Dorio; Clifton D Fuller; Kristy Brock; Shlomo Koyfman; Neil Woody; Nikhil Joshi; Jacob G Scott Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 2.243