No abstract

BackgroundTo evaluate the volumetric and geometric differences in the ITVs generated by four-dimensional (4D) computed tomography (CT), a modified slow CT scan, and a combination of these CT methods in lung cancer patients treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT).MethodsBoth 4D CT and modified slow CT using a multi-slice CT scanner were performed for SBRT planning in 14 patients with 15 pulmonary targets. Volumetric and geometric analyses were performed for (1) ITVall, generated by combining the gross tumor volumes (GTVs) from all 8 phases of the 4D CT; (2) ITV2, generated by combining the GTVs from 2 extreme phases of the 4D CT; (3) ITVslow, derived from the GTV on the modified slow CT scan; (4) ITVall+slow, generated by combining ITVall and ITVslow; and (5) ITV2+slow, generated by combining ITV2 and ITVslow. Three SBRT plans were performed using 3 ITVs to assess the dosimetric effects on normal lung caused by the various target volumes.ResultsITVall (11.8 ± 8.3 cm3) was significantly smaller than ITVall+slow (12.5 ± 8.9 cm3), with mean values of 5.8% for the percentage volume difference, and a mean of 7.5% of ITVslow was not encompassed in ITVall. The geometric coverages of ITV2 and ITVslow for ITVall were 84.7 ± 6.6% and 76.2 ± 9.3%, respectively, but the coverage for ITVall increased to 90.9 ± 5.9% by using the composite of these two ITVs. There were statistically significant increases in the lung-dose parameters of the plans based on ITVall+slow compared to the plans based on ITVall or ITV2+slow. However, the magnitudes of these differences were relatively small, with a value of less than 3% in all dosimetric parameters.ConclusionsDue to its ability to provides additional motion information, the combination of 4D CT and a modified slow CT scan in SBRT planning for lung cancer can be used to reduce possible errors in true target delineation caused by breathing pattern variations.

Background: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of reirradiation using threedimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in symptomatic patients with locoregionally recurrent lung cancer. Methods: Between 2005 and 2012, 15 patients with locoregionally recurrent lung cancer were retreated with 3D-CRT after previously receiving thoracic radiotherapy. The median interval between the initial irradiation and reirradiation was 12 months (range, five to 41 months). The median initial radiotherapy dose was 63 Gy (range, 45-70 Gy), and reirradiation doses ranged from 25.2 to 45.2 Gy (median, 36 Gy), with daily fractions of 1.8-4 Gy (median, 2 Gy). Results: After reirradiation, 80% of the patients experienced resolved or diminished symptoms for one or more of their symptoms, with an 83% improvement in a total of 24 symptoms. The overall tumor response rate to reirradiation was 46.7%, with progressive disease occurring in only one patient. The median overall survival (OS) time was 11 months (range, one to 27 months), and the one-year OS rate was 47%. The progression-free survival time ranged from one to 10 months (median, five months). In univariate analysis, the use of combined chemotherapy and a higher reirradiation dose showed a trend toward improved survival after reirradiation. Treatment-induced toxicity included grade 2 radiation pneumonitis in only one patient, and there were no other complications, such as radiation esophagitis or myelopathy. Conclusions: Reirradiation using 3D-CRT with moderate doses for locoregionally recurrent lung cancer can provide palliative benefits without severe complications to the majority of selected patients with symptoms as a result of a regrowing tumor.

Background: To evaluate the correction differences between vertebra and tumor matching as cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-guided setup strategies in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), and the correlations with tumor characteristics such as size, mobility, and location. Methods: The manual registrations for 33 lung tumors treated with SBRT were retrospectively performed by matching thoracic vertebrae for vertebra matching and then by matching CBCT-visualized tumors within the internal target volume obtained from a four-dimensional CT dataset for tumor matching. Results: The mean correction difference between the two matching methods during the SBRT fractions was larger in the anterior-posterior direction (2.7 mm) than in the superior-inferior (2.1 mm) and left-right (1.4 mm) directions, with differences of less than 5 mm in 90% of the total 134 CBCT fractions. The X-axis and direct distances from the central axis to the tumor had significant correlations with the correction differences in all three directions, while the mobility-related parameters were correlated only in the superior-inferior direction. The absolute differences in lung-dose parameters after applying the margins (3.4-6.5 mm) required for the setup errors from vertebra matching relative to tumor matching were mild, with values of 1.95 Gy for the mean lung dose and 3.9% for V20. Conclusion: The setup differences between vertebra and tumor matching in the CBCT-guided setup without rotation correction were increased in tumors located long distances from the central axis. The additional safety margins of 3.4-6.5 mm were required for the setup errors from vertebra matching. Key pointsSignificant findings of the study The correction difference between the vertebra and tumor matching as CBCT-guided setup strategies was the largest in the anterior-posterior direction and significantly correlated with the X-axis and direct distances from the central axis to the tumor. What this study adds Setup differences between vertebra and tumor matching in the CBCT-guided setup were increased in tumors located long distances from the central axis. The additional safety margins of 3.4-6.5 mm were required for the setup errors from vertebra matching.