Stereotactic body radiotherapy using the forward-planned static-port tomotherapy for lung cancer: a novel planning technique with the newly-developed mode.
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Equipment Design
Female
Humans
Lung Neoplasms
/ radiotherapy
Male
Middle Aged
Radiometry
/ methods
Radiosurgery
/ methods
Radiotherapy Dosage
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Radiotherapy, Conformal
/ methods
Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated
/ methods
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
forward planning mode
lung cancer
static-port tomotherapy
stereotactic body radiotherapy
tomotherapy
Journal
Journal of radiation research
ISSN: 1349-9157
Titre abrégé: J Radiat Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0376611
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Nov 2020
16 Nov 2020
Historique:
received:
30
07
2020
revised:
18
08
2020
entrez:
19
11
2020
pubmed:
20
11
2020
medline:
28
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
With the newly-developed static-port forward-planning (FP) mode of tomotherapy, the ratio of the dose of the planning target volume (PTV) periphery to the maximum dose can be easily adjusted by modifying leaf margins when planning stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the characteristics of FP plans compared to helical intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and helical 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) plans of SBRT for lung tumors. The three plans were created for 14 tumors in 11 patients. For 13 tumors, 60 Gy in 7.5-Gy fractions was prescribed for a minimum coverage dose of 95% of the PTV (D95). The prescribed isodose line (PIL) was intended to be 60-80% of the maximum dose. Nine angles were used for the FP plans. The median D98 and D50 of the internal target volume for FP, helical-IMRT and helical-3DCRT plans were 70.4, 71.4 and 60.5 Gy, respectively (P < 0.001), and 77.7, 75.7 and 62.3 Gy, respectively (P < 0.0001). The median PIL and the lung volume receiving ≥20 Gy (V20) were 73.4, 73.4 and 94.3%, respectively (P < 0.0001), and 4.7, 4.0 and 5.7%, respectively (P < 0.0001). These parameters were not significantly different between the FP and helical-IMRT plans. The median beam-on times were 238.6, 418.9 and 197.1 s, respectively (P < 0.0001). The FP plans reduced the beam-on time by 43% compared to the helical-IMRT plans. The dose distribution of the FP plans was comparable to that of the helical-IMRT plans. The helical-3DCRT plans could not adjust PIL to be 60-80%.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33210148
pii: 5907941
doi: 10.1093/jrr/rraa092
pmc: PMC7674681
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
993-998Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Japan Radiation Research Society and Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology.
Références
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2013 Jan-Mar;3(1):67-73
pubmed: 24674265
J Clin Oncol. 2019 May 20;37(15):1316-1325
pubmed: 30943123
Med Phys. 1993 Nov-Dec;20(6):1709-19
pubmed: 8309444
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 20;10(4):e0123359
pubmed: 25894841
J Radiat Res. 2018 Sep 1;59(5):664-668
pubmed: 29868727
Med Phys. 2010 Aug;37(8):4078-101
pubmed: 20879569
J Thorac Oncol. 2015 Jun;10(6):960-4
pubmed: 26001145
Tumori. 2014 Jan-Feb;100(1):42-8
pubmed: 24675490
Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:473173
pubmed: 24995299
Phys Med Biol. 2006 Jul 7;51(13):R427-53
pubmed: 16790916
J Radiat Res. 2020 May 22;61(3):426-430
pubmed: 32219316
J Radiat Res. 2019 Oct 23;60(5):694-704
pubmed: 31365118
Strahlenther Onkol. 2019 Mar;195(3):193-198
pubmed: 30649567
Radiother Oncol. 2017 Jul;124(1):11-17
pubmed: 28687397
Radiat Oncol. 2009 May 28;4:15
pubmed: 19476628
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2012 Jan-Mar;2(1):46-53
pubmed: 24674036
Med Phys. 2018 Apr;45(4):1329-1337
pubmed: 29405307
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Feb 1;73(2):442-8
pubmed: 18990507
Radiat Oncol. 2013 Mar 21;8:68
pubmed: 23517931
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2016 Jul;46(7):687-91
pubmed: 27162324
J Radiat Res. 2019 May 1;60(3):364-370
pubmed: 30668868