Tomohisa Furuya1, Hiroshi Tanaka1, Mark Ruschin2, Keiji Nihei1, Dilini Pinnaduwage3, Lijun Ma3, Arjun Sahgal2, Katsuyuki Karasawa1. 1. Department of Radiology, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center, Komagome Hospital, Tokyo, 113-8677, Japan. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Center, University of Toronto, M4N 3M5, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) planning for spinal metastases is a challenging task that involves complex target shapes and steep dose gradients proximal to the spinal cord. The aim of the present study is to investigate dosimetric variability among delivery systems and institutions doing spine SBRT.Materials and Methods: Three institutions (in Japan, Canada, and the USA) participated in this retrospective treatment planning study. Computed tomography (CT) datasets for three patients including fully delineated targets and organs-at-risk (OAR) were distributed to all three institutions for planning. Delivery systems included the Clinac 21EX, Vero4DRT, Synergy S, and CyberKnife. All treatment plans were generated using a prescribed dose of 24 Gy in 2 fractions and met the following objectives: the evaluated planning target volume (PTVevl, defined as the PTV minus spinal cord) should receive greater than 16.8 Gy in at least 95% of the volume (D95 > 16.8 Gy) and a maximum dose to the less than 140% of the prescribed dose (Dmax < 33.6 Gy). The maximum dose of planning risk volume (PRV) cord or thecal sac was limited to 0.035 cm3 receiving less than 17 Gy. Aside from minimum and maximum dose objectives for the PTVevl, there were no criteria regarding the shape of the PTVevl dose-volume histogram (DVH). For each completed treatment plan, the following DVH parameters were evaluated for the PTVevl: D95, D80, D50, D2 and sigma-index (S-index, standard deviation of the differential DVH). RESULTS: The PTVevl and OAR dose volume constraints were satisfied in all treatment plans. For Case 1, the mean PTVevl D50 was 25.4 ± 1.5 Gy (range: 23.7 - 27.8 Gy), for Case 2 it was 26.7 ± 2.0 Gy (23.6 - 28.6 Gy), and for Case 3 it was 26.0 ± 1.3 Gy (24.1 - 27.3 Gy). The mean PTVevl D2 was 27.3 ± 2.2 Gy (24.4 - 30.2 Gy), 28.9 ± 3.0 Gy (24.5 - 31.4 Gy) and 28.7 ± 2.7 Gy (25.2 - 31.6 Gy) for Cases 1, 2, and 3, respectively. However, there were statistically significant variations in the DVH parameters of PTVevl between apparatuses (CyberKnife versus non-CyberKnife) and among institutions (between 2 CyberKnife sites or between 2 conventional accelerator sites). CONCLUSIONS: Although all institutions met the minimum prescribed objectives, inter-institutional and inter-apparatus target dose variations were observed. Further study is necessary to determine target dose constraints that may minimize inter-institutional variations and lead to plan standardization.
INTRODUCTION: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) planning for spinal metastases is a challenging task that involves complex target shapes and steep dose gradients proximal to the spinal cord. The aim of the present study is to investigate dosimetric variability among delivery systems and institutions doing spine SBRT.Materials and Methods: Three institutions (in Japan, Canada, and the USA) participated in this retrospective treatment planning study. Computed tomography (CT) datasets for three patients including fully delineated targets and organs-at-risk (OAR) were distributed to all three institutions for planning. Delivery systems included the Clinac 21EX, Vero4DRT, Synergy S, and CyberKnife. All treatment plans were generated using a prescribed dose of 24 Gy in 2 fractions and met the following objectives: the evaluated planning target volume (PTVevl, defined as the PTV minus spinal cord) should receive greater than 16.8 Gy in at least 95% of the volume (D95 > 16.8 Gy) and a maximum dose to the less than 140% of the prescribed dose (Dmax < 33.6 Gy). The maximum dose of planning risk volume (PRV) cord or thecal sac was limited to 0.035 cm3 receiving less than 17 Gy. Aside from minimum and maximum dose objectives for the PTVevl, there were no criteria regarding the shape of the PTVevl dose-volume histogram (DVH). For each completed treatment plan, the following DVH parameters were evaluated for the PTVevl: D95, D80, D50, D2 and sigma-index (S-index, standard deviation of the differential DVH). RESULTS: The PTVevl and OAR dose volume constraints were satisfied in all treatment plans. For Case 1, the mean PTVevl D50 was 25.4 ± 1.5 Gy (range: 23.7 - 27.8 Gy), for Case 2 it was 26.7 ± 2.0 Gy (23.6 - 28.6 Gy), and for Case 3 it was 26.0 ± 1.3 Gy (24.1 - 27.3 Gy). The mean PTVevl D2 was 27.3 ± 2.2 Gy (24.4 - 30.2 Gy), 28.9 ± 3.0 Gy (24.5 - 31.4 Gy) and 28.7 ± 2.7 Gy (25.2 - 31.6 Gy) for Cases 1, 2, and 3, respectively. However, there were statistically significant variations in the DVH parameters of PTVevl between apparatuses (CyberKnife versus non-CyberKnife) and among institutions (between 2 CyberKnife sites or between 2 conventional accelerator sites). CONCLUSIONS: Although all institutions met the minimum prescribed objectives, inter-institutional and inter-apparatus target dose variations were observed. Further study is necessary to determine target dose constraints that may minimize inter-institutional variations and lead to plan standardization.
Entities:
Keywords:
Spine metastases; apparatus dependence; dosimetric difference; international multi-institutional planning study; spine stereotactic body radiotherapy; target prescribed dose
Authors: Xin Shelley Wang; Laurence D Rhines; Almon S Shiu; James N Yang; Ugur Selek; Ibrahima Gning; Ping Liu; Pamela K Allen; Syed S Azeem; Paul D Brown; Hadley J Sharp; David C Weksberg; Charles S Cleeland; Eric L Chang Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2012-01-27 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: David C Weksberg; Matthew B Palmer; Khoi N Vu; Neal C Rebueno; Hadley J Sharp; Dershan Luo; James N Yang; Almon S Shiu; Laurence D Rhines; Mary Frances McAleer; Paul D Brown; Eric L Chang Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-03-22 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Brett W Cox; Daniel E Spratt; Michael Lovelock; Mark H Bilsky; Eric Lis; Samuel Ryu; Jason Sheehan; Peter C Gerszten; Eric Chang; Iris Gibbs; Scott Soltys; Arjun Sahgal; Joe Deasy; John Flickinger; Mubina Quader; Stefan Mindea; Yoshiya Yamada Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-05-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Lijun Ma; Arjun Sahgal; Luca Cozzi; Eric Chang; Almon Shiu; Daniel Letourneau; Fang-Fang Yin; Antonella Fogliata; Wolfgang Kaissl; Derek Hyde; Normand J Laperriere; Dennis C Shrieve; David A Larson Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-12
Authors: Stanley H Benedict; Kamil M Yenice; David Followill; James M Galvin; William Hinson; Brian Kavanagh; Paul Keall; Michael Lovelock; Sanford Meeks; Lech Papiez; Thomas Purdie; Ramaswamy Sadagopan; Michael C Schell; Bill Salter; David J Schlesinger; Almon S Shiu; Timothy Solberg; Danny Y Song; Volker Stieber; Robert Timmerman; Wolfgang A Tomé; Dirk Verellen; Lu Wang; Fang-Fang Yin Journal: Med Phys Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Arjun Sahgal; Mark Bilsky; Eric L Chang; Lijun Ma; Yoshiya Yamada; Laurence D Rhines; Daniel Létourneau; Matthew Foote; Eugene Yu; David A Larson; Michael G Fehlings Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2010-12-24
Authors: Arjun Sahgal; Eshetu G Atenafu; Sam Chao; Ameen Al-Omair; Nicholas Boehling; Ehsan H Balagamwala; Marcelo Cunha; Isabelle Thibault; Lilyana Angelov; Paul Brown; John Suh; Laurence D Rhines; Michael G Fehlings; Eric Chang Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-08-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Zain A Husain; Isabelle Thibault; Daniel Letourneau; Lijun Ma; Harald Keller; John Suh; Veronica Chiang; Eric L Chang; Raja K Rampersaud; James Perry; David A Larson; Arjun Sahgal Journal: CNS Oncol Date: 2013-05