RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy for lung plans requires 4DCT. Most radiotherapy centres use this to determine an internal target volume (ITV), despite studies suggesting that planning on a mid-ventilation (Mid-V) phase can reduce target volumes. The purpose of this study is two-fold: to determine whether the Mid-V approach provides adequate coverage and to discuss methods to enable the Mid-V approach to be applied more widely. METHOD: 4D scans of 79 patients were outlined on every phase. The mid-V phase was identified. Margins were determined from the range of motion, and plans generated with a 55â¯Gy prescription. A grid-based method was used to get the probability of tumour coverage in the presence of systematic and random uncertainties, with and without blurring for breathing motion. RESULTS: For the Mid-V plans with the margins calculated from the van-Herk formula, after blurring doses for breathing, the coverage (dose covering 95% of the CTV 95% of the time) was greater than for plans with isotropic 5â¯mm margins uncorrected for breathing (58.2â¯Gy v 57.3â¯Gy). Similar results were obtained for a linear margin chosen as 0.15 of the breathing range. Deformable contour propagation in a commercial outlining system (ProSoma) identified the same mid-V phase in the majority of cases. CONCLUSION: Our results confirm that a mid-V approach can be used to reduce the PTV size, with no loss of tumour coverage. We propose the use of a simplified margin formula equal to the margin ignoring breathing plus 0.15 of the range of motion.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias Pulmonares/radioterapia , Radiocirugia/métodos , Planificación de la Radioterapia Asistida por Computador/métodos , Algoritmos , Tomografía Computarizada Cuatridimensional/métodos , Humanos , Imagenología Tridimensional/métodos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/fisiopatología , Dosificación Radioterapéutica , Mecánica RespiratoriaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: PARSPORT was a multi-centre randomised trial in the UK which compared Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) and conventional radiotherapy (CRT) for patients with head and neck cancer. The dosimetry audit goals were to verify the plan delivery in participating centres, ascertain what tolerances were suitable for head and neck IMRT trials and develop an IMRT credentialing program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Centres enrolling patients underwent rigorous quality assurance before joining the trial. Following this each centre was visited for a dosimetry audit, which consisted of treatment planning system tests, fluence verification films, combined field films and dose point measurements. RESULTS: Mean dose point measurements were made at six centres. For the primary planning target volume (PTV) the differences with the planned values for the IMRT and CRT arms were -0.6% (1.8% to -2.4%) and 0.7% (2.0% to -0.9%), respectively. Ninety-four percent of the IMRT fluence films for individual fields passed gamma criterion of 3%/3mm and 75% of the films for combined fields passed gamma criterion 4%/3mm (no significant difference between dynamic delivery and step and shoot delivery). CONCLUSIONS: This audit suggests that a 3% tolerance could be applied for PTV point doses. For dose distributions tolerances of 3%/3mm on individual fields and 4%/3mm for combined fields are proposed for multi-centre head and neck IMRT trials.