Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T10:59:11.278Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4DCT radiotherapy for NSCLC: a review of planning methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2014

A. Hutchinson*
Affiliation:
Radiation Oncology Mater Centre, South Brisbane
P. Bridge
Affiliation:
School of Clinical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
*
Correspondence to: Adam Glenn Hutchinson, Bachelor of Radiation Therapy, Radiation Oncology Mater Centre, 31 Raymond Terrace, South Brisbane, Australia, 31 Raymond Terrace, Queensland Health, South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Tel: (07) 38403244; E-mail: Adam_Hutchinson@health.qld.gov.au

Abstract

Purpose

To establish whether the use of a passive or active technique of planning target volume (PTV) definition and treatment methods for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) deliver the most effective results. This literature review assesses the advantages and disadvantages in recent studies of each, while assessing the validity of the two approaches for planning and treatment.

Methods

A systematic review of literature focusing on the planning and treatment of radiation therapy to NSCLC tumours. Different approaches which have been published in recent articles are subjected to critical appraisal in order to determine their relative efficacy.

Results

Free-breathing (FB) is the optimal method to perform planning scans for patients and departments, as it involves no significant increase in cost, workload or education. Maximum intensity projection (MIP) is the fastest form of delineation, however it is noted to be less accurate than the ten-phase overlap approach for computed tomography (CT). Although gating has proven to reduce margins and facilitate sparing of organs at risk, treatment times can be longer and planning time can be as much as 15 times higher for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). This raises issues with patient comfort and stabilisation, impacting on the chance of geometric miss. Stereotactic treatments can take up to 3 hours to treat, along with increases in planning and treatment, as well as the additional hardware, software and training required.

Conclusion

Four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) is superior to 3DCT, with the passive FB approach for PTV delineation and treatment optimal. Departments should use a combination of MIP with visual confirmation ensuring coverage for stage 1 disease. Stages 2–3 should be delineated using ten-phases overlaid. Stereotactic and gated treatments for early stage disease should be used accordingly; FB-IMRT is optimal for latter stage disease.

Type
Literature Reviews
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Australian Lung Foundation 2010. Lung Cancer Statistics, http://www.lungfoundation.com.au/content/view/4/1/. Accessed on October 2012.Google Scholar
2.Reitz, B, Parda, D S, Colonias, A, Lee, V, Miften, M. Investigation of simple IMRT delivery techniques for non-small cell lung cancer patients with respiratory motion using 4DCT. Med Dosim 2009; 34 (2): 158169.Google Scholar
3.van der Voort van Zyp, N C, Prévost, J B, Hoogeman, M Set al. Stereotactic radiotherapy with real-time tumor tracking for non-small cell lung cancer: clinical outcome. Radiother Oncol 2009; 91 (3): 296300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Huang, L, Park, K, Boike, Tet al. A study on the dosimetric accuracy of treatment planning for stereotactic body radiation therapy of lung cancer using average and maximum intensity projection images. Radiother Oncol 2010; 96 (1): 4854.Google Scholar
5.Washington, C M, Leaver, D. Principles and Practice of Radiation Therapy, 3rd edition. St. Louis: Mosby, 2010: 321378.Google Scholar
6.Rietzel, E, Liu, A K, Doppke, K Pet al. Design of 4D treatment planning target volumes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 66 (1): 287295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Wolthaus, J W H, Sonke, J-J, van Herk, Met al. Comparison of different strategies to use four-dimensional computed tomography in treatment planning for lung cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 70 (4): 12291238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Keall, P J. The management of respiratory motion in radiation oncology report of AAPM Task Group 76. Med Dosim 2006; 33 (10): 127.Google Scholar
9.Bradley, J D, Nofal, A N, El Naqa, I Met al. Comparison of helical, maximum intensity projection (MIP), and averaged intensity (AI) 4D CT imaging for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) planning in lung cancer. Radiother Oncol 2006; 81: 264268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Muirhead, R, McNee, S G, Featherstone, C, Moore, K, Muscat, S. Use of maximum intensity projections (MIPs) for target outlining in 4DCT radiotherapy planning. J Thorac Oncol 2008; 3 (12): 14331438.Google Scholar
11.Chang, J Y, Cox, J D. Improving radiation conformality in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Semin Rad Oncol 2010; 20 (3): 171177.Google Scholar
12.Hof, H, Rhein, B, Haering, P, Kopp-Schneider, A, Debus, J, Herfarth, K. 4D-CT-based target volume definition in stereotactic radiotherapy of lung tumours: comparison with a conventional technique using individual margins. Radiother Oncol 2009; 93: 419423.Google Scholar
13.Bezjak, A, Rumble, R B, Rodrigues, G, Hope, A, Warde, P. Members of the IMRT indications expert panel. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy in the treatment of lung cancer. Clin Oncol 2012; 24 (7): 508520.Google Scholar
14.Mexner, V, Wolthaus, J W H, van Herk, M, Damen, E M F, Sonke, J-J. Effects of respiration-induced density variations on dose distributions in radiotherapy of lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 74 (4): 12661275.Google Scholar
15.De Ruysscher, D, Nestle, U, Jeraj, R, MacManus, M. PET scans in radiotherapy of lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2012; 75: 141145.Google Scholar
16.Callahan, J, Kron, T, Schneider-Kolsky, Met al. Validation of 4D-PET maximum intensity projection for delineation of internal target volume. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013; 86: 749754.Google Scholar
17.Hanna, G G, van Sornsen de Koste, J R, Dahele, M Ret al. Defining target volumes for stereotactic ablative radiotherapy of early-stage lung tumours: a comparison of three-dimensional 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and four-dimensional computed tomography. Clin Oncol 2012; 24: 7180.Google Scholar
18.Liu, H H, Balter, P, Tutt, Tet al. Assessing respiration-induced tumour motion and internal target volume using four-dimensional computed tomography for radiotherapy of lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 68 (2): 531540.Google Scholar
19.Fritz, P, Kraus, H-J, Blaschke, Tet al. Stereotactic, high single-dose irradiation of stage 1 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using four-dimensional CT scans for treatment planning. Lung Cancer 2008; 60: 193199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Li, F X, Li, J B, Zhang, Y Jet al. Comparison of the planning target volume based on three-dimensional CT and four-dimensional CT images of non-small cell lung cancer. Radiother Oncol 2011; 99: 176180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Starkschall, G, Britton, K, McAleer, M Fet al. Potential dosimetric benefits of four-dimensional radiation treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 73 (5): 15601565.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Underberg, R W M, Lagerwaard, F J, Slotman, B J, Cuijpers, J P, Senan, S. Benefit of respiration-gated stereotactic radiotherapy for stage 1 lung cancer: an analysis of 4DCT datasets. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 62 (2): 554560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Muirhead, R, Featherstone, C, Duffton, A, Moore, K, McNee, S. The potential clinical benefit of respiratory gated radiotherapy (RGRT) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Radiother Oncol 2010; 95 (2): 172177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed