SU‐E‐T‐308

Radiobiological Evaluation of the Three Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy, SmartArc, and Helical Tomotherapy Treatment Techniques for Pediatric Cranio‐Spinal Axis Irradiation

P. Myers, Sotirios Stathakis, P. Mavroidis, A. Gutierrez, C. Esquivel, William Jones, T. Eng, Chul S Ha, Nikos Papanikolaou

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: Currently, radiotherapy treatment planning acceptance is based primarily on dosimetric plan performance and concerns. However, using radiobiological analysis to assess the benefit of tumor control while limiting injury to normal tissues can be greatly advantageous. For pediatric CSI patients in particular, knowing the technique that will optimize the benefit versus injury probability can lead to greater long‐term outcomes. Methods: Twenty‐four CSI pediatric patients (median age 10) were retrospectively planned with three techniques: three‐dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D‐CRT), SmartArc (SA), and helical tomotherapy (HT). Each plan was normalized to 95% of target volume (whole brain and spinal cord) receiving prescription dose 23.4 Gy in 13 fractions. Using an in‐house Matlab code and the DVH data from each plan, the three techniques were evaluated based on biologically equivalent uniform dose (BEUD), probability of controlling the tumor without causing severe injury to normal tissues (P+), and optimal BEUD and P+. Results: Overall, 3D‐CRT and SA plans had similar values of BEUD (24.1 and 24.2 Gy) while HT had a BEUD slightly lower (23.6 Gy). P+ percentages were 64.7, 67.3, and 56.7% on average for 3D‐CRT, SA, and HT plans respectively. The optimal values for BEUD were 28.5, 33.0, and 32.2 Gy for the 3D‐CRT, SA, and HT plans, respectively. Although the actual P+ values were lower for HT, choosing a more optimal BEUD prescription level yields an optimal P+ of 94.3, 99.6, and 99.4% for 3D‐CRT, SA, and HT, respectively. Conclusion: If the optimal dose level is prescribed using a radiobiological calculation method as opposed to purely dosimetric, the two IMRT techniques, SA and HT, will yield the greatest overall benefit to the CSI patient by maximizing tumor control and limiting normal tissue injury. Using SA or HT, may provide these pediatric patients with better long‐term outcomes after radiotherapy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)275
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume40
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2013

Fingerprint

Craniospinal Irradiation
Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy
Radiotherapy
Pediatrics
Wounds and Injuries
Therapeutics
Prescriptions
Neoplasms
Spinal Cord

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐E‐T‐308 : Radiobiological Evaluation of the Three Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy, SmartArc, and Helical Tomotherapy Treatment Techniques for Pediatric Cranio‐Spinal Axis Irradiation. / Myers, P.; Stathakis, Sotirios; Mavroidis, P.; Gutierrez, A.; Esquivel, C.; Jones, William; Eng, T.; Ha, Chul S; Papanikolaou, Nikos.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 40, No. 6, 2013, p. 275.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{3e92a69df2614111a4395972b2380415,
title = "SU‐E‐T‐308: Radiobiological Evaluation of the Three Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy, SmartArc, and Helical Tomotherapy Treatment Techniques for Pediatric Cranio‐Spinal Axis Irradiation",
abstract = "Purpose: Currently, radiotherapy treatment planning acceptance is based primarily on dosimetric plan performance and concerns. However, using radiobiological analysis to assess the benefit of tumor control while limiting injury to normal tissues can be greatly advantageous. For pediatric CSI patients in particular, knowing the technique that will optimize the benefit versus injury probability can lead to greater long‐term outcomes. Methods: Twenty‐four CSI pediatric patients (median age 10) were retrospectively planned with three techniques: three‐dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D‐CRT), SmartArc (SA), and helical tomotherapy (HT). Each plan was normalized to 95{\%} of target volume (whole brain and spinal cord) receiving prescription dose 23.4 Gy in 13 fractions. Using an in‐house Matlab code and the DVH data from each plan, the three techniques were evaluated based on biologically equivalent uniform dose (BEUD), probability of controlling the tumor without causing severe injury to normal tissues (P+), and optimal BEUD and P+. Results: Overall, 3D‐CRT and SA plans had similar values of BEUD (24.1 and 24.2 Gy) while HT had a BEUD slightly lower (23.6 Gy). P+ percentages were 64.7, 67.3, and 56.7{\%} on average for 3D‐CRT, SA, and HT plans respectively. The optimal values for BEUD were 28.5, 33.0, and 32.2 Gy for the 3D‐CRT, SA, and HT plans, respectively. Although the actual P+ values were lower for HT, choosing a more optimal BEUD prescription level yields an optimal P+ of 94.3, 99.6, and 99.4{\%} for 3D‐CRT, SA, and HT, respectively. Conclusion: If the optimal dose level is prescribed using a radiobiological calculation method as opposed to purely dosimetric, the two IMRT techniques, SA and HT, will yield the greatest overall benefit to the CSI patient by maximizing tumor control and limiting normal tissue injury. Using SA or HT, may provide these pediatric patients with better long‐term outcomes after radiotherapy.",
author = "P. Myers and Sotirios Stathakis and P. Mavroidis and A. Gutierrez and C. Esquivel and William Jones and T. Eng and Ha, {Chul S} and Nikos Papanikolaou",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1118/1.4814742",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "40",
pages = "275",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐E‐T‐308

T2 - Radiobiological Evaluation of the Three Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy, SmartArc, and Helical Tomotherapy Treatment Techniques for Pediatric Cranio‐Spinal Axis Irradiation

AU - Myers, P.

AU - Stathakis, Sotirios

AU - Mavroidis, P.

AU - Gutierrez, A.

AU - Esquivel, C.

AU - Jones, William

AU - Eng, T.

AU - Ha, Chul S

AU - Papanikolaou, Nikos

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Purpose: Currently, radiotherapy treatment planning acceptance is based primarily on dosimetric plan performance and concerns. However, using radiobiological analysis to assess the benefit of tumor control while limiting injury to normal tissues can be greatly advantageous. For pediatric CSI patients in particular, knowing the technique that will optimize the benefit versus injury probability can lead to greater long‐term outcomes. Methods: Twenty‐four CSI pediatric patients (median age 10) were retrospectively planned with three techniques: three‐dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D‐CRT), SmartArc (SA), and helical tomotherapy (HT). Each plan was normalized to 95% of target volume (whole brain and spinal cord) receiving prescription dose 23.4 Gy in 13 fractions. Using an in‐house Matlab code and the DVH data from each plan, the three techniques were evaluated based on biologically equivalent uniform dose (BEUD), probability of controlling the tumor without causing severe injury to normal tissues (P+), and optimal BEUD and P+. Results: Overall, 3D‐CRT and SA plans had similar values of BEUD (24.1 and 24.2 Gy) while HT had a BEUD slightly lower (23.6 Gy). P+ percentages were 64.7, 67.3, and 56.7% on average for 3D‐CRT, SA, and HT plans respectively. The optimal values for BEUD were 28.5, 33.0, and 32.2 Gy for the 3D‐CRT, SA, and HT plans, respectively. Although the actual P+ values were lower for HT, choosing a more optimal BEUD prescription level yields an optimal P+ of 94.3, 99.6, and 99.4% for 3D‐CRT, SA, and HT, respectively. Conclusion: If the optimal dose level is prescribed using a radiobiological calculation method as opposed to purely dosimetric, the two IMRT techniques, SA and HT, will yield the greatest overall benefit to the CSI patient by maximizing tumor control and limiting normal tissue injury. Using SA or HT, may provide these pediatric patients with better long‐term outcomes after radiotherapy.

AB - Purpose: Currently, radiotherapy treatment planning acceptance is based primarily on dosimetric plan performance and concerns. However, using radiobiological analysis to assess the benefit of tumor control while limiting injury to normal tissues can be greatly advantageous. For pediatric CSI patients in particular, knowing the technique that will optimize the benefit versus injury probability can lead to greater long‐term outcomes. Methods: Twenty‐four CSI pediatric patients (median age 10) were retrospectively planned with three techniques: three‐dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D‐CRT), SmartArc (SA), and helical tomotherapy (HT). Each plan was normalized to 95% of target volume (whole brain and spinal cord) receiving prescription dose 23.4 Gy in 13 fractions. Using an in‐house Matlab code and the DVH data from each plan, the three techniques were evaluated based on biologically equivalent uniform dose (BEUD), probability of controlling the tumor without causing severe injury to normal tissues (P+), and optimal BEUD and P+. Results: Overall, 3D‐CRT and SA plans had similar values of BEUD (24.1 and 24.2 Gy) while HT had a BEUD slightly lower (23.6 Gy). P+ percentages were 64.7, 67.3, and 56.7% on average for 3D‐CRT, SA, and HT plans respectively. The optimal values for BEUD were 28.5, 33.0, and 32.2 Gy for the 3D‐CRT, SA, and HT plans, respectively. Although the actual P+ values were lower for HT, choosing a more optimal BEUD prescription level yields an optimal P+ of 94.3, 99.6, and 99.4% for 3D‐CRT, SA, and HT, respectively. Conclusion: If the optimal dose level is prescribed using a radiobiological calculation method as opposed to purely dosimetric, the two IMRT techniques, SA and HT, will yield the greatest overall benefit to the CSI patient by maximizing tumor control and limiting normal tissue injury. Using SA or HT, may provide these pediatric patients with better long‐term outcomes after radiotherapy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024815585&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024815585&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.4814742

DO - 10.1118/1.4814742

M3 - Article

VL - 40

SP - 275

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -