Analysis of normal lung irradiation in radiosurgery treatments: a comparison of lung optimized treatment (LOT) on cyberknife, 4D target volume on helical tomotherapy, and DIBH on linear accelerator

摘要

Quantitative retrospective analysis of the normal lung irradiation due to the variations of the ITV volume based on the techniques used for upper lobe (UL), mid lobe (ML), and lower lobe (LL) lung tumours when used with 2-view, 1-view, 0-view based LOT technique on Cyberknife, AveIP on Helical Tomotherapy, and DIBH on VMAT systems. In the treatment of lung tumours, patients medically inoperable or those who are unwilling to undergo surgery have the option to be treated using radiation therapy. There are many motion control techniques available for the treatment of the moving target, such as movement encompassment, respiratory gating, breath-hold, motion reduction, and tumour monitoring. ITV generation is dependent on technique and hence the volume of the PTVs will differ based on the technique used. This study aimed to determine the influence of these ITVs on the irradiated normal lung volume for UL, ML, and LL lung tumours for 23 patients. The mean difference in the PTV volumes generated with the 0-view technique was significant with that of 2-view and DIBH techniques (p-value 0.04). The mean difference in the PTV volumes generated by 2-view and DIBH was small for UL, ML, and LL tumours. V-5 of the combined lung with the 0-view method was 5% compared to the 2-view method for UL tumours (p-value = 0.04) and the same was 9.5%, and 16.8% for ML and LL tumours (p-value 0.04). In contrast to all other techniques, lung volume parameters V-5, V-10, V-20,V- and V-30 for the 0-view technology were consistently higher irrespective of the tumour location in the lung. The observed maximum mean lung dose (MLD) was 6.2 Gy +/- 2.7 Gy with the 0-view technique and the minimum was 3.85 Gy +/- 1.75 Gy with the DIBH technique. The difference in MLD between DIBH and 2-view was negligible (p-value = 0.67). The MLD increased for LL tumours from 4 Gy to 6.5 Gy from the 2-view to 0-view technique (p-value = 0.009). There was a significant increase in MLD for LL tumours with the 0-view technique compared to AveIP (1.9 Gy, p-value = 0.04) and DIBH (2.0 Gy, p-value = 0.003) technique. For ML and UL tumours, except for 0-view and 1-view, the difference in the MLD between the rest of the methods was not significant (p-value 0.11). In the treatment of lung tumour patients with SBRT, this study has demonstrated 2-view with Cyberknife and DIBH with VMAT treatment techniques have optimal normal lung tissue sparing. There was a significant increase in the average lung volume receiving 5%,10%, 20%, and 30% dose when comparing the 1-view, 0-view, AveIP, and DIBH techniques to the 2-view technique. However, DIBH with VMAT was dosimetrically advantageous for ML and LL tumours, while providing significantly shorter treatment times than any other technique studied.