Improving geometric sparing and therapeutic effectiveness of lung SBRT for central and ultra-central tumors.

The use of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for central- and ultra-central lung tumors is a major therapeutic challenge since there are trade-offs between delivering adequate dose to the tumor and minimizing toxicity to critical mediastinal organs. This work investigates improving the therapeutic effectiveness of such SBRT treatments by enhancing the geometric sparing of normal tissue and systematically applying a planning target volume (PTV) margin smaller than the conventional values. Using plans from 10 previously SBRT-treated patients, we retrospectively created highly conformal plans with a reduced PTV margin of 2 mm and compared them to the clinical plans with a standard 5 mm PTV margin. We compared various dosimetric and biological parameters. We calculated the geometrical sparing factor (GSF) (ratio of biological dose between normal tissue and targets) for the mediastinal organs and the uncomplicated tumor control probability (UTCP) for the esophagus. We tracked tumor fraction doses using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. With geometric sparing, the median dose for critical mediastinal organs (proximal bronchial tree, great vessels, esophagus, and heart) dropped by 10 Gy (p ≤ 0.006). Dose sparing for the spinal cord and chest wall was 5 Gy and 8 Gy, respectively (p = 0.002). The geometrical sparing factor (GSF) dropped by 50% for the esophagus and the proximal bronchial tree (PBT) and 40% for the great vessels (p < 0.05). The CBCT fractional tumor dose varied by 2.7% (0.2 Gy) for the initially intended treatment volume and 4% (0.3 Gy) when accounting for daily volume changes. The expected delivered dose was above the prescribed value. Systematically reducing the PTV margin to 2 mm in lung SBRT of central and ultra-central tumors is feasible and ensures consistency in contouring and dose prescribing. It allows safe delivery of highly conformal treatments with significantly higher therapeutic effectiveness, potentially reducing treatment-related complications. Consequently, it may enable safer dose escalation, more effective fractionations, and safer management of retreatments and treatments of multiple synchronous lung tumors.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for ultra-central lung tumors: prioritize target coverage or organs at risk?

BACKGROUND: Lung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is associated with low morbidity, however there is an increased risk of treatment-related toxicity in tumors directly abutting or invading the proximal bronchial tree, termed 'ultra-central' tumors. As there is no consensus regarding the optimal radiotherapy treatment regimen for these tumors, we performed a modeling study to evaluate the trade-offs between predicted toxicity and local control for commonly used high-precision dose-fractionation regimens. METHODS: Ten patients with ultra-central lung tumors were identified from our institutional database. New plans were generated for 3 different hypofractionated schemes: 50 Gy in 5 fractions, 60 Gy in 8 fractions and 60 Gy in 15 fractions. For each regimen, one plan was created that prioritized planning target volume (PTV) coverage, potentially at the expense of organ at risk (OAR) tolerance, and a second that compromised PTV coverage to respect OAR dose constraints. Published radiobiological models were employed to evaluate competing treatment plans based on estimates for local control and the likelihood for toxicity to OAR. RESULTS: The risk of esophageal or pulmonary toxicity was low (< 5%) in all scenarios. When PTV coverage was prioritized, tumor control probabilities were 92.9% for 50 Gy in 5 fractions, 92.4% for 60 Gy in 8 fractions, and 52.0% for 60 Gy in 15 fractions; however the estimated risk of grade ≥ 4 toxicity to the proximal bronchial tree was 68%, 44% and 2% respectively. When dose to OAR was prioritized, the risk of major pulmonary toxicity was reduced to < 1% in all schemes, but this compromise reduced tumor control probability to 60.3% for 50 Gy in 5 fractions, 65.7% for 60 Gy in 8 fractions and 47.8% for 60 Gy in 15 fractions. CONCLUSIONS: The tradeoff between local control and central airway toxicity are considerable in the use of 3 commonly used hypofractionated radiotherapy regimens for ultra-central lung cancer. The results of this planning study predict that the best balance may be achieved with 60 Gy in 8 fractions compromising PTV coverage as required to maintain acceptable doses to OAR. A prospective phase I trial (SUNSET) is planned to further evaluate this challenging clinical scenario.

Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Versus 3D Conformal Radiotherapy for Postoperative Gynecologic Cancer: Are They Covering the Same Planning Target Volume?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study compares dosimetric parameters of planning target volume (PTV) coverage and organs at risk (OAR) sparing when postoperative radiotherapy for gynecologic cancers is delivered using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) versus a four-field (4FLD) box technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From July to December 2012, women requiring postoperative radiation for gynecologic cancers were treated with a standardized VMAT protocol. Two sets of optimized 4FLD plans were retrospectively generated: one based on standard anatomical borders (4FLD) and one based on the clinical target volume (CTV) created for VMAT with a 2 cm expansion guiding field border placement (4FLD+2). Ninety-five percent isodose curves were generated to evaluate PTV coverage. RESULTS: VMAT significantly improved dose conformity compared with 4FLD and 4FLD+2 plans (p < 0.001) and provided additional coverage of the PTV posteriorly and superiorly, corresponding to coverage of the presacral and proximal iliac vessels. There was a significant reduction in dose to all OARs with VMAT, including a 58% reduction in the volume of the small bowel receiving more than 45 Gy (p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Despite treating a larger volume, radiotherapy using a 4FLD technique is less homogenous and provides inferior coverage of the PTV compared with VMAT. With meticulous treatment planning and delivery, VMAT effectively encompasses the PTV and minimizes dose to OARs.