Viability of Noncoplanar VMAT for liver SBRT compared with coplanar VMAT and beam orientation optimized 4π IMRT

Kaley Woods, Dan Nguyen, Angelia Tran, Victoria Y. Yu, Minsong Cao, Tianye Niu, Percy Lee, Ke Sheng

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

22 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose The 4π static noncoplanar radiation therapy delivery technique has demonstrated better normal tissue sparing and dose conformity than the clinically used volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). It is unclear whether this is a fundamental limitation of VMAT delivery or the coplanar nature of its typical clinical plans. The dosimetry and the limits of normal tissue toxicity constrained dose escalation of coplanar VMAT, noncoplanar VMAT and 4π radiation therapy are quantified in this study. Methods and materials Clinical stereotactic body radiation therapy plans for 20 liver patients receiving 30 to 60 Gy using coplanar VMAT (cVMAT) were replanned using 3 to 4 partial noncoplanar arcs (nVMAT) and 4π with 20 intensity modulated noncoplanar fields. The conformity number, homogeneity index, 50% dose spillage volume, normal liver volume receiving >15 Gy, dose to organs at risk (OARs), and tumor control probability were compared for all 3 treatment plans. The maximum tolerable dose yielding a normal liver normal tissue control probability <1%, 5%, and 10% was calculated with the Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model for each plan as well as the resulting survival fractions at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years. Results Compared with cVMAT, the nVMAT and 4π plans reduced liver volume receiving >15 Gy by an average of 5 cm3 and 80 cm3, respectively. 4π reduced the 50% dose spillage volume by ∼23% compared with both VMAT plans, and either significantly decreased or maintained OAR doses. The 4π maximum tolerable doses and survival fractions were significantly higher than both cVMAT and nVMAT (P <.05) for all normal liver normal tissue control probability limits used in this study. Conclusions The 4π technique provides significantly better OAR sparing than both cVMAT and nVMAT and enables more clinically relevant dose escalation for tumor local control. Therefore, despite the current accessibility of nVMAT, it is not a viable alternative to 4π for liver SBRT.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)67-75
Number of pages9
JournalAdvances in Radiation Oncology
Volume1
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2016

Fingerprint

Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy
Organs at Risk
Liver
Radiotherapy
Neoplasms
Survival

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Viability of Noncoplanar VMAT for liver SBRT compared with coplanar VMAT and beam orientation optimized 4π IMRT. / Woods, Kaley; Nguyen, Dan; Tran, Angelia; Yu, Victoria Y.; Cao, Minsong; Niu, Tianye; Lee, Percy; Sheng, Ke.

In: Advances in Radiation Oncology, Vol. 1, No. 1, 01.01.2016, p. 67-75.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Woods, Kaley ; Nguyen, Dan ; Tran, Angelia ; Yu, Victoria Y. ; Cao, Minsong ; Niu, Tianye ; Lee, Percy ; Sheng, Ke. / Viability of Noncoplanar VMAT for liver SBRT compared with coplanar VMAT and beam orientation optimized 4π IMRT. In: Advances in Radiation Oncology. 2016 ; Vol. 1, No. 1. pp. 67-75.
@article{1e10bea6f2654138a6369173a2b507cf,
title = "Viability of Noncoplanar VMAT for liver SBRT compared with coplanar VMAT and beam orientation optimized 4π IMRT",
abstract = "Purpose The 4π static noncoplanar radiation therapy delivery technique has demonstrated better normal tissue sparing and dose conformity than the clinically used volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). It is unclear whether this is a fundamental limitation of VMAT delivery or the coplanar nature of its typical clinical plans. The dosimetry and the limits of normal tissue toxicity constrained dose escalation of coplanar VMAT, noncoplanar VMAT and 4π radiation therapy are quantified in this study. Methods and materials Clinical stereotactic body radiation therapy plans for 20 liver patients receiving 30 to 60 Gy using coplanar VMAT (cVMAT) were replanned using 3 to 4 partial noncoplanar arcs (nVMAT) and 4π with 20 intensity modulated noncoplanar fields. The conformity number, homogeneity index, 50{\%} dose spillage volume, normal liver volume receiving >15 Gy, dose to organs at risk (OARs), and tumor control probability were compared for all 3 treatment plans. The maximum tolerable dose yielding a normal liver normal tissue control probability <1{\%}, 5{\%}, and 10{\%} was calculated with the Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model for each plan as well as the resulting survival fractions at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years. Results Compared with cVMAT, the nVMAT and 4π plans reduced liver volume receiving >15 Gy by an average of 5 cm3 and 80 cm3, respectively. 4π reduced the 50{\%} dose spillage volume by ∼23{\%} compared with both VMAT plans, and either significantly decreased or maintained OAR doses. The 4π maximum tolerable doses and survival fractions were significantly higher than both cVMAT and nVMAT (P <.05) for all normal liver normal tissue control probability limits used in this study. Conclusions The 4π technique provides significantly better OAR sparing than both cVMAT and nVMAT and enables more clinically relevant dose escalation for tumor local control. Therefore, despite the current accessibility of nVMAT, it is not a viable alternative to 4π for liver SBRT.",
author = "Kaley Woods and Dan Nguyen and Angelia Tran and Yu, {Victoria Y.} and Minsong Cao and Tianye Niu and Percy Lee and Ke Sheng",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.adro.2015.12.004",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "1",
pages = "67--75",
journal = "Advances in Radiation Oncology",
issn = "2452-1094",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Viability of Noncoplanar VMAT for liver SBRT compared with coplanar VMAT and beam orientation optimized 4π IMRT

AU - Woods, Kaley

AU - Nguyen, Dan

AU - Tran, Angelia

AU - Yu, Victoria Y.

AU - Cao, Minsong

AU - Niu, Tianye

AU - Lee, Percy

AU - Sheng, Ke

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - Purpose The 4π static noncoplanar radiation therapy delivery technique has demonstrated better normal tissue sparing and dose conformity than the clinically used volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). It is unclear whether this is a fundamental limitation of VMAT delivery or the coplanar nature of its typical clinical plans. The dosimetry and the limits of normal tissue toxicity constrained dose escalation of coplanar VMAT, noncoplanar VMAT and 4π radiation therapy are quantified in this study. Methods and materials Clinical stereotactic body radiation therapy plans for 20 liver patients receiving 30 to 60 Gy using coplanar VMAT (cVMAT) were replanned using 3 to 4 partial noncoplanar arcs (nVMAT) and 4π with 20 intensity modulated noncoplanar fields. The conformity number, homogeneity index, 50% dose spillage volume, normal liver volume receiving >15 Gy, dose to organs at risk (OARs), and tumor control probability were compared for all 3 treatment plans. The maximum tolerable dose yielding a normal liver normal tissue control probability <1%, 5%, and 10% was calculated with the Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model for each plan as well as the resulting survival fractions at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years. Results Compared with cVMAT, the nVMAT and 4π plans reduced liver volume receiving >15 Gy by an average of 5 cm3 and 80 cm3, respectively. 4π reduced the 50% dose spillage volume by ∼23% compared with both VMAT plans, and either significantly decreased or maintained OAR doses. The 4π maximum tolerable doses and survival fractions were significantly higher than both cVMAT and nVMAT (P <.05) for all normal liver normal tissue control probability limits used in this study. Conclusions The 4π technique provides significantly better OAR sparing than both cVMAT and nVMAT and enables more clinically relevant dose escalation for tumor local control. Therefore, despite the current accessibility of nVMAT, it is not a viable alternative to 4π for liver SBRT.

AB - Purpose The 4π static noncoplanar radiation therapy delivery technique has demonstrated better normal tissue sparing and dose conformity than the clinically used volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). It is unclear whether this is a fundamental limitation of VMAT delivery or the coplanar nature of its typical clinical plans. The dosimetry and the limits of normal tissue toxicity constrained dose escalation of coplanar VMAT, noncoplanar VMAT and 4π radiation therapy are quantified in this study. Methods and materials Clinical stereotactic body radiation therapy plans for 20 liver patients receiving 30 to 60 Gy using coplanar VMAT (cVMAT) were replanned using 3 to 4 partial noncoplanar arcs (nVMAT) and 4π with 20 intensity modulated noncoplanar fields. The conformity number, homogeneity index, 50% dose spillage volume, normal liver volume receiving >15 Gy, dose to organs at risk (OARs), and tumor control probability were compared for all 3 treatment plans. The maximum tolerable dose yielding a normal liver normal tissue control probability <1%, 5%, and 10% was calculated with the Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model for each plan as well as the resulting survival fractions at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years. Results Compared with cVMAT, the nVMAT and 4π plans reduced liver volume receiving >15 Gy by an average of 5 cm3 and 80 cm3, respectively. 4π reduced the 50% dose spillage volume by ∼23% compared with both VMAT plans, and either significantly decreased or maintained OAR doses. The 4π maximum tolerable doses and survival fractions were significantly higher than both cVMAT and nVMAT (P <.05) for all normal liver normal tissue control probability limits used in this study. Conclusions The 4π technique provides significantly better OAR sparing than both cVMAT and nVMAT and enables more clinically relevant dose escalation for tumor local control. Therefore, despite the current accessibility of nVMAT, it is not a viable alternative to 4π for liver SBRT.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84995528406&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84995528406&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.adro.2015.12.004

DO - 10.1016/j.adro.2015.12.004

M3 - Article

C2 - 27104216

AN - SCOPUS:84995528406

VL - 1

SP - 67

EP - 75

JO - Advances in Radiation Oncology

JF - Advances in Radiation Oncology

SN - 2452-1094

IS - 1

ER -