Study of 201 non-small cell lung cancer patients given stereotactic ablative radiation therapy shows local control dependence on dose calculation algorithm.

PURPOSE Pencil beam (PB) and collapsed cone convolution (CCC) dose calculation algorithms differ significantly when used in the thorax. However, such differences have seldom been previously directly correlated with outcomes of lung stereotactic ablative body radiation (SABR). METHODS AND MATERIALS Data for 201 non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with SABR were analyzed retrospectively. All patients were treated with 50 Gy in 5 fractions of 10 Gy each. The radiation prescription mandated that 95% of the planning target volume (PTV) receive the prescribed dose. One hundred sixteen patients were planned with BrainLab treatment planning software (TPS) with the PB algorithm and treated on a Novalis unit. The other 85 were planned on the Pinnacle TPS with the CCC algorithm and treated on a Varian linac. Treatment planning objectives were numerically identical for both groups. The median follow-up times were 24 and 17 months for the PB and CCC groups, respectively. The primary endpoint was local/marginal control of the irradiated lesion. Gray's competing risk method was used to determine the statistical differences in local/marginal control rates between the PB and CCC groups. RESULTS Twenty-five patients planned with PB and 4 patients planned with the CCC algorithms to the same nominal doses experienced local recurrence. There was a statistically significant difference in recurrence rates between the PB and CCC groups (hazard ratio 3.4 [95% confidence interval: 1.18-9.83], Gray's test P=.019). The differences (Δ) between the 2 algorithms for target coverage were as follows: ΔD99GITV = 7.4 Gy, ΔD99PTV = 10.4 Gy, ΔV90GITV = 13.7%, ΔV90PTV = 37.6%, ΔD95PTV = 9.8 Gy, and ΔDISO = 3.4 Gy. GITV = gross internal tumor volume. CONCLUSIONS Local control in patients receiving who were planned to the same nominal dose with PB and CCC algorithms were statistically significantly different. Possible alternative explanations are described in the report, although they are not thought likely to explain the difference. We conclude that the difference is due to relative dosimetric underdosing of tumors with the PB algorithm.

[1]  S. Senan,et al.  Stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer in patients aged > or =75 years: outcomes after stereotactic radiotherapy. , 2010, Cancer.

[2]  A. Boyer,et al.  Tissue Inhomogeneity Corrections for Megavoltage Photon Beams , 2004 .

[3]  Geoffrey G. Zhang,et al.  Experimentally studied dynamic dose interplay does not meaningfully affect target dose in VMAT SBRT lung treatments. , 2013, Medical physics.

[4]  Tomas Kron,et al.  A contemporary review of stereotactic radiotherapy: Inherent dosimetric complexities and the potential for detriment , 2011, Acta oncologica.

[5]  Nandita Mitra,et al.  A moving target: Image guidance for stereotactic body radiation therapy for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. , 2013, Practical radiation oncology.

[6]  Hui Yan,et al.  A Phantom Study on Target Localization Accuracy Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography , 2008, Clinical medicine. Oncology.

[7]  P. Xia,et al.  Dose calculation differences between Monte Carlo and pencil beam depend on the tumor locations and volumes for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy , 2013, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[8]  Nzhde Agazaryan,et al.  Stereotactic body radiation therapy and 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for stage I non-small cell lung cancer: A pooled analysis of biological equivalent dose and local control. , 2012, Practical radiation oncology.

[9]  Edward Clouser,et al.  Intensity-modulated radiotherapy-based stereotactic body radiotherapy for medically inoperable early-stage lung cancer: excellent local control. , 2010, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[10]  Jan Nyman,et al.  Outcome in a prospective phase II trial of medically inoperable stage I non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[11]  David S Followill,et al.  Algorithms used in heterogeneous dose calculations show systematic differences as measured with the Radiological Physics Center's anthropomorphic thorax phantom used for RTOG credentialing. , 2012, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[12]  David A Jaffray,et al.  Cone-beam computed tomography for on-line image guidance of lung stereotactic radiotherapy: localization, verification, and intrafraction tumor position. , 2007, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[13]  Anton Mans,et al.  Volumetric-modulated arc therapy for stereotactic body radiotherapy of lung tumors: a comparison with intensity-modulated radiotherapy techniques. , 2011, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[14]  B. Loo,et al.  Clinical impact of dose overestimation by effective path length calculation in stereotactic ablative radiation therapy of lung tumors. , 2013, Practical radiation oncology.

[15]  Matthew B. Podgorsak,et al.  A dosimetric evaluation of VMAT for the treatment of non‐small cell lung cancer , 2012, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[16]  Andrea Bezjak,et al.  Stereotactic body radiation therapy for inoperable early stage lung cancer. , 2010, JAMA.

[17]  R. Gray.  A Class of $K$-Sample Tests for Comparing the Cumulative Incidence of a Competing Risk , 1988 .

[18]  I. Lax,et al.  Dose distributions in SBRT of lung tumors: Comparison between two different treatment planning algorithms and Monte-Carlo simulation including breathing motions , 2006, Acta oncologica.

[19]  Koichi Yamazaki,et al.  Insertion and fixation of fiducial markers for setup and tracking of lung tumors in radiotherapy. , 2005, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[20]  P. Parikh,et al.  Dose-response for stereotactic body radiotherapy in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. , 2011, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[21]  M. V. van Herk,et al.  The probability of correct target dosage: dose-population histograms for deriving treatment margins in radiotherapy. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[22]  Matthias Guckenberger,et al.  Dose-response relationship for image-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy of pulmonary tumors: relevance of 4D dose calculation. , 2009, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[23]  Hui Yan,et al.  A phantom study on the positioning accuracy of the Novalis Body system. , 2003, Medical physics.

[24]  Lech Papiez,et al.  Stereotactic body radiation therapy for early-stage non-small-cell lung carcinoma: four-year results of a prospective phase II study. , 2009, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[25]  J. Fowler.  The linear-quadratic formula and progress in fractionated radiotherapy. , 1989, The British journal of radiology.

[26]  M. Lodge,et al.  Stereotactic radiotherapy (SABR) for the treatment of primary non-small cell lung cancer; systematic review and comparison with a surgical cohort. , 2013, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[27]  Joshua D. Lawson,et al.  A survey of image‐guided radiation therapy use in the United States , 2010, Cancer.

[28]  D. Hallahan,et al.  Impact of inhomogeneity corrections on dose coverage in the treatment of lung cancer using stereotactic body radiation therapy. , 2007, Medical physics.

[29]  J. Sonke,et al.  Required target margins for image-guided lung SBRT: Assessment of target position intrafraction and correction residuals. , 2013, Practical radiation oncology.

[30]  T. Krieger,et al.  Monte Carlo- versus pencil-beam-/collapsed-cone-dose calculation in a heterogeneous multi-layer phantom , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[31]  M. Schell,et al.  Stereotactic body radiation therapy: the report of AAPM Task Group 101. , 2010, Medical physics.