Optimizing collimator margins for isotoxically dose-escalated conformal radiation therapy of non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Isotoxic dose escalation schedules such as IDEAL-CRT [isotoxic dose escalation and acceleration in lung cancer chemoradiation therapy] (ISRCTN12155469) individualize doses prescribed to lung tumors, generating a fixed modeled risk of radiation pneumonitis. Because the beam penumbra is broadened in lung, the choice of collimator margin is an important element of the optimization of isotoxic conformal radiation therapy for lung cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twelve patients with stage I-III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were replanned retrospectively using a range of collimator margins. For each plan, the prescribed dose was calculated according to the IDEAL-CRT isotoxic prescription method, and the absolute dose (D99) delivered to 99% of the planning target volume (PTV) was determined. RESULTS: Reducing the multileaf collimator margin from the widely used 7 mm to a value of 2 mm produced gains of 2.1 to 15.6 Gy in absolute PTV D99, with a mean gain ± 1 standard error of the mean of 6.2 ± 1.1 Gy (2-sided P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: For NSCLC patients treated with conformal radiation therapy and an isotoxic dose prescription, absolute doses in the PTV may be increased by using smaller collimator margins, reductions in relative coverage being offset by increases in prescribed dose.

Influence of dose calculation algorithms on isotoxic dose-escalation of non-small cell lung cancer radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A series of phase I/II clinical trials are being initiated in several UK centres to explore the use of dose-escalated schedules for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Among them the IDEAL-CRT trial (ISRCTN12155469) will investigate the introduction of individualised "isotoxic" treatment schedules based on the relative mean lung normalised total dose (rNTD(mean)), an estimator related to lung toxicity. Since treatment planning will be performed using different treatment planning systems (TPSs), for the quality assurance of the trial we have carried out work to quantify the influence of dose calculation algorithms based on the determination of rNTD(mean) and on the choice of individualised prescription doses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-five patient plans with stage I, II and III NSCLC were calculated, with the same prescription dose, using the Adaptive Convolve (AC) and Collapsed Cone (CC) algorithms of the Pinnacle TPS, the pencil beam convolution (PBC) and AAA algorithms of Eclipse, and the CC and pencil beam (PB) algorithms of Oncentra Masterplan (OMP). For the paired-lungs-GTV structure, dose-volume histograms were obtained and used to calculate the corresponding rNTD(mean) values and results obtained with the different algorithms were compared. RESULTS: For most (19 out of 25) of the patients studied, no algorithm-to-algorithm differences were seen in dose prescription based on rNTD(mean). For the other 6 patients differences were within 2.3 Gy, except in one case where the difference was 4 Gy. CONCLUSIONS: For the IDEAL-CRT trial no corrections need to be applied to the value of rNTD(mean) calculated using any of the more advanced convolution/superposition algorithms studied in this work. For the two pencil beam algorithms analysed, no correction is necessary for the data obtained with the Eclipse-PBC, while for OMP-PB data a small correction needs to be applied, by using a scaling factor, to make prescription doses consistent with the other algorithms investigated.

Early mucosal reactions during and after head-and-neck radiotherapy: dependence of treatment tolerance on radiation dose and schedule duration.

PURPOSE: To more precisely localize the dose-time boundary between head-and-neck radiotherapy schedules inducing tolerable and intolerable early mucosal reactions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Total cell-kill biologically effective doses (BED(CK)) have been calculated for 84 schedules, including incomplete repair effects, but making no other corrections for the effect of schedule duration T. [BED(CK),T] scatterplots are graphed, overlying BED(CKboundary)(T) curves on the plots and using discriminant analysis to optimize BED(CKboundary)(T) to best represent the boundary between the tolerable and intolerable schedules. RESULTS: More overlap than expected is seen between the tolerable and intolerable treatments in the 84-schedule [BED(CK),T] scatterplot, but this was largely eliminated by removing gap and tolerated accelerating schedules from the plot. For the remaining 57 predominantly regular schedules, the BED(CKboundary)(T) boundary increases with increasing T (p = 0.0001), curving upwards significantly nonlinearly (p = 0.00007) and continuing to curve beyond 15 days (p = 0.035). The regular schedule BED(CKboundary)(T) boundary does not describe tolerability well for accelerating schedules (p = 0.002), with several tolerated accelerating schedules lying above the boundary where regular schedules would be intolerable. Gap schedule tolerability also is not adequately described by the regular schedule boundary (p = 0.04), although no systematic offset exists between the regular boundary and the overall gap schedule tolerability pattern. CONCLUSIONS: All schedules analyzed (regular, gap, and accelerating) with BED(CK) values below BED(CKboundary)(T)=69.5x(T/32.2)/sin((T/32.2)((radians)))-3.5Gy(10)(forT< or =50 days) are tolerable, and many lying above the boundary are intolerable. The accelerating schedules analyzed were tolerated better overall than are the regular schedules with similar [BED(CK),T] values.

Questionnaire based quality assurance for the RT01 trial of dose escalation in conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer (ISRCTN 47772397).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In order to ensure the validity of the outcome of the Medical Research Council's 'RTO1 trial' of dose escalation in conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer it was considered important that the quality of treatment delivery should meet an adequate standard across all contributing centres. A questionnaire was therefore devised to ensure that all aspects of the planning and delivery process were adequately covered. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The questionnaire considered each step in the planning and delivery process and drew the attention of the participants to the specific requirements of the trial. Before entering patients into the trial each participating centre had to complete the questionnaire and an outlining exercise (reported elsewhere). RESULTS: It was not practicable to define a detailed universally acceptable protocol for the whole process of delivery of conformal radiotherapy, not least because of the different equipment available for planning and treatment in different centres. The questionnaire identified some areas of difference in practice between centres where there may be a need for the development of a consensus as to best practice, particularly in the area of patient set-up. Occasionally it was necessary to follow up responses to questions that had been misunderstood or inadequately answered, but in most cases these issues proved to be easily resolved. CONCLUSIONS: The questionnaire proved to be a useful self-assessment tool as well as enabling the quality assurance group to ensure that the standards of the trial were being met. Subsequent follow-up visits confirmed the usefulness and validity of this self assessment process.