Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T07:43:45.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A dosimetric retrospective planning study comparing volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) treatment plans for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2015

Maungwe Peter  and
Chamunyonga Crispen
Maungwe Peter*
Affiliation:
The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
Chamunyonga Crispen
Affiliation:
The Cancer Centre, Nassau, Bahamas
*
Correspondence to: Maungwe Peter, Christie Physics and Medical Engineering, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK. Tel: 0161 446 8181. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Purpose

A retrospective planning study comparing volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) treatment plans for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods and materials

Five randomly selected early stage lung cancer patients were included in the study. For each patient, four plans were created: the SBRT plan and three VMAT plans using different optimisation methodologies. A total of 20 different plans were evaluated. The dose parameters of dose conformity results and the target dose constraints results were compared for these plans.

Results

The mean planning target volume (PTV) for all the plans (SBRT and VMAT) was 18·3 cm3, with a range from 15·6 to 20·1 cm3. The maximum dose tolerance to 1 cc of all the plans was within 140% (84 Gy) of the prescribed dose, and 95% of the PTV of all the plans received 100% of the prescribed dose (60 Gy). In all the plans, 99% of the PTV received a dose >90% of the prescribed dose, and the mean dose in all the plans ranged from 67 to 72 Gy. The planning target dose conformity for the SBRT and the VMAT (0°, 15° collimator single arc plans and dual arc) plans showed the tightness of the prescription isodose conformity to the target.

Conclusions

SBRT and VMAT are radiotherapy approaches that increase doses to small tumour targets without increasing doses to the organs at risk. Although VMAT offers an alternative to SBRT for NSCLC and the potential advantage of VMAT is the reduced treatment times over SBRT, the statistical results show that there was no significant difference between the SBRT and VMAT optimised plans in terms of dose conformity and organ-at-risk sparing.

Keywords

non-small cell lung cancerradiotherapySBRTVMAT
Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 260 - 267
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Qiao, X, Tullgren, O, Lax, Iet al. The role of radiotherapy in treatment of stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2003; 41: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Kunkler, I H, Audisio, R, Belkacemi, Yet al. Review of current best practice and priorities for research in radiation oncology for elderly patients with cancer: the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) task force. Ann Oncol 2014; 10: 1087–1093.Google Scholar
3.Janssen-Heijnen, M, Smulders, S, Lemmens, Vet al. Effect of comorbidity on the treatment and prognosis of elderly patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Thorax 2004; 59 (7): 602–607.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Brock, J, Bedford, J, Partridge, Met al. Optimising stereotactic body radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer with VMAT- a planning study. Clin Oncol 2012; 24 (1): 68–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Palma, D, Vollans, E, James, Ket al. Volumetric modulated arc therapy for delivery of prostate radiotherapy: comparison with intensity-modulated radiotherapy and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 72: 996–1001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Coen, W H, Johan, P C, Frank, J Let al. Recommendations for implementing stereotactic radiotherapy in peripheral stage IA non-small cell lung cancer: report from the Quality Assurance Working Party of the randomised phase III ROSEL study. Radiat Oncol 2009; 4: 1.Google Scholar
7.Bedford, J L. Treatment planning for volumetric modulated arc therapy. Med Phys 2009; 36: 5128–5138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Richmond, N, Green, J, Peedell, C, Shakespeare, D, Walker, C. Dosimetric evaluation of a conformal seven-field coplanar technique for planning lung stereotactic body radiotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2012; 24 (1): 24–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Bradley, J, Deasy, J O, Bentzen, S, El-Naqa, I. Dosimetric correlates for acute esophagitis in patients treated with radiotherapy for lung carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 58 (4): 1106–1113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Laed statistics. One way ANOVA, 2013. https://statistics.laerd.com/. Accessed on 20th June 2014.Google Scholar
11.Bertelsen, A, Hansen, O, Brink, C. Does VMAT for treatment of NSCLC patients increase the risk of pneumonitis compared to IMRT. Acta Oncol 2012; 51 (6): 752–758.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Francis, K N, Purdie, T G, Dawson, L A. Incorporating heterogeneity correction and 4DCT in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), the effect on target coverage, organs at risk doses, and dose conformity. Med Dosim 2010; 35 (2): 101–107.Google Scholar
13.Ping-Fang, T, Shih-Min, L, Shen-Hao, Let al. The feasibility study of using multiple partial volumetric-modulated arcs therapy in early stage left-sided breast cancer patients. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2012; 13: 5.Google Scholar
14.Matuszak, M M, Yan, D, Grills, I, Martinez, A. Clinical applications of volumetric modulated arc therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 77 (2): 608–616.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed