4.7 Article

DOSE COVERAGE BEYOND THE GROSS TUMOR VOLUME FOR VARIOUS STEREOTACTIC BODY RADIOTHERAPY PLANNING TECHNIQUES REPORTING SIMILAR CONTROL RATES FOR STAGE I NON-SMALL-CELL LUNG CANCER

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.07.048

关键词

Non-small cell lung cancer; SBRT; GTV coverage; Microscopic extensions; Treatment planning

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To investigate the dose falloff region for various stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) planning techniques used in the treatment of Stage I non-small-cell lung cancer reporting similar control rates. Methods and Materials: The SBRT plans were constructed on five patient data sets using seven different planning regimens. These regimens varied in the number of beams, number of fractions, prescription target, and prescribed dose used. For each case all regimens were planned using a common gross tumor volume (GTV). To compare dose falloff for the various regimens, resulting physical dose grids were converted into normalized total dose (NTD) grids. Furthermore, to determine the potential coverage of microscopic extension of the various regimens minimal peripheral NTD (NTD-MP100) were calculated and plotted as a function of incremental volume expansions of the GTV. Results: Average values for NTD-MP100 varied over a range of 174 Gy at the GTV periphery, but this range fell to 10 Gy at a distance of 14 rum from the GTV. Of 35 plans, 23 resulted in potential microscopic extension coverage of 78% to 95%. Averages for five of seven regimens fell within the range of 80% to 85%. Results were negligibly affected when intrafraction motion effects were accounted for. Conclusions: Although average NTD-MP100 varied dramatically at the GTV, periphery values became similar at a distance of 14 mm from the GTV. With the exception of two, potential coverage of microscopic extension was similar for all planning techniques, with averages falling within a 5% range. (c) 2008 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据