Tracking, gating, free-breathing, which technique to use for lung stereotactic treatments? A dosimetric comparison.

BACKGROUND: The management of breath-induced tumor motion is a major challenge for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Three techniques are currently available for these treatments: tracking (T), gating (G) and free-breathing (FB). AIM: To evaluate the dosimetric differences between these three treatment techniques for lung SBRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pretreatment 4DCT data were acquired for 10 patients and sorted into 10 phases of a breathing cycle, such as 0% and 50% phases defined respectively as the inhalation and exhalation maximum. GTVph, PTVph (=GTVph + 3 mm) and the ipsilateral lung were contoured on each phase.For the tracking technique, 9 fixed fields were adjusted to each PTVph for the 10 phases. The gating technique was studied with 3 exhalation phases (40%, 50% and 60%). For the free-breathing technique, ITVFB was created from a sum of all GTVph and a 3 mm margin was added to define a PTVFB. Fields were adjusted to PTVFB and dose distributions were calculated on the average intensity projection (AIP) CT. Then, the beam arrangement with the same monitor units was planned on each CT phase.The 3 modalities were evaluated using DVHs of each GTVph, the homogeneity index and the volume of the ipsilateral lung receiving 20 Gy (V 20Gy). RESULTS: The FB system improved the target coverage by increasing D mean (75.87(T)-76.08(G)-77.49(FB)Gy). Target coverage was slightly more homogeneous, too (HI: 0.17(T and G)-0.15(FB)). But the lung was better protected with the tracking system (V 20Gy: 3.82(T)-4.96(G)-6.34(FB)%). CONCLUSIONS: Every technique provides plans with a good target coverage and lung protection. While irradiation with free-breathing increases doses to GTV, irradiation with the tracking technique spares better the lung but can dramatically increase the treatment complexity.

Evaluation of reproducibility of tumor repositioning during multiple breathing cycles for liver stereotactic body radiotherapy treatment.

AIM: To evaluate the tumor repositioning during gated volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for liver stereotactic body radiotherapy(SBRT) treatment using implanted fiducial markers and intrafraction kilovoltage (kV) images acquired during dose delivery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Since 2012, 47 liver cancer patients with implanted fiducial markers were treated using the gated VMAT technique with a Varian Truebeam STx linear accelerator. The fiducial markers were implanted inside or close to the tumor target before treatment simulation. They were defined at the maximum inhalation and exhalation phases on a 4-dimensionnal computed tomography (4DCT) acquisition. During the treatment, kV images were acquired just before the beam-on at each breathing cycle at maximum exhalation and inhalation phases to verify the fiducial markers positions. For the five first fractions of treatment in the first ten consecutive patients, a total of 2705 intrafraction kV images were retrospectively analyzed to assess the differences between expected and actual positions of the fiducial markers along the cranio-caudal (CC) direction during the exhalation phase. RESULTS: The mean absolute intrafractional fiducial marker deviation along the CC direction was 1.0 mm at the maximum exhalation phase. In 99%, 95% and 90% cases, the fiducial marker deviations were ≤4.5 mm, 2.8 mm and 2.2 mm, respectively. CONCLUSION: Intrafraction kV images allowed us to ensure the consistency of tumor repositioning during treatment. In 99% cases, the fiducial marker deviations were ≤4.5 mm corresponding to our 5 mm treatment margin. This margin seems to be well-adapted to the gated VMAT SBRT treatment in liver disease.

Imaged-guided liver stereotactic body radiotherapy using VMAT and real-time adaptive tumor gating. Concerns about technique and preliminary clinical results.

BACKGROUND: Motion management is a major challenge in abdominal SBRT. We present our study of SBRT for liver tumors using intrafraction motion review (IMR) allowing simultaneous KV information and MV delivery to synchronize the beam during gated RapidArc treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between May 2012 and March 2015, 41 patients were treated by liver SBRT using gated RapidArc technique in a Varian Novalis Truebeam STx linear accelerator. PTV was created by expanding 5 mm from the ITV. Dose prescription ranged from 40 to 50 Gy in 5-10 fractions. The prescribed dose and fractionation were chosen depending on hepatic function and dosimetric results. Thirty-four patients with a minimal follow-up of six months were analyzed for local control and toxicity. Accuracy for tumor repositioning was evaluated for the first ten patients. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 13 months, the treatment was well tolerated and no patient presented RILD, perforation or gastrointestinal bleeding. Acute toxicity was found in 3 patients with G1 abdominal pain, 2 with G1 nausea, 10 with G1 asthenia and 1 with G2 asthenia. 6 patients presented asymptomatic transitory perturbation of liver enzymes. In-field local control was 90.3% with 7 complete responses, 14 partial responses and 7 stabilisations. 3 patients evolved "in field". 12 patients had an intrahepatic progression "out of field". Mean intrafraction deviation of fiducials in the craneo-caudal direction was 0.91 mm (0-6 mm). CONCLUSION: The clinical tolerance and oncological outcomes were favorable when using image-guided liver SBRT with real-time adaptive tumor gating.

SBRT planning for liver metastases: A focus on immobilization, motion management and planning imaging techniques.

AIM: To evaluate the different techniques used for liver metastases Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) planning. We especially focused on immobilization devices, motion management and imaging used for contouring. BACKGROUND: Although some guidelines exist, there is no consensus regarding the minimal requirements for liver SBRT treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the main liver metastases SBRT publications and guidelines; and compared the techniques used for immobilization, motion management, margins and imaging. RESULTS: There is a wide variety of techniques used for immobilization, motion management and planning imaging. CONCLUSIONS: We provide a subjective critical analysis of minimal requirements and ideal technique for liver SBRT planning.

Is IMAT the ultimate evolution of conformal radiotherapy? Dosimetric comparison of helical tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for oropharyngeal cancer in a planning study.

BACKGROUND: Intensity Modulated Arc Therapy (IMAT) can be planned and delivered via several techniques. Advanced Radiotherapy (ARTORL) is a prospective study that aims to evaluate the treatment costs and clinical aspects of implementing these IMAT techniques for head and neck cancers. In this context, we evaluated the potential dosimetric gain of Helical Tomotherapy (TomoTherapy, Accuray, HT) versus VMAT (Rapid'Arc(®), Varian Medical System, RA) for oropharyngeal cancer (OC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty patients were selected from our database in whom bilateral neck irradiation and treatment to the primary were indicated. Each patient was planned twice using both HT and RA planning systems using a simultaneous integrated boost approach. For the planning target volumes (PTV) and organs at risk, ICRU 83 reporting guidelines were followed. RA and HT plans were compared using paired Student's t-test. RESULTS: RA and HT produced plans with a good coverage of PTVs and acceptable sparing of OARs. Although some dosimetric differences were statistically significant, they remained small. However, the near maximal dose to the PRV of spinal cord and brain stem was lower with HT. Regarding normal tissue, HT increased the volume irradiated at doses between 4 and 20 Gy compared to RA. CONCLUSION: In OC, HT and RA showed similar dosimetric results. They represent the maximum gains obtained with photon beams. The medicoeconomic evaluation of our study is ongoing and may reveal differences between these techniques in terms of MU number, fraction time, and clinical evaluation.