Premium
TH‐C‐12A‐07: Implementation of a Pulsed Low Dose Date Radiotherapy (PLRT) Protocol for Recurrent Cancers Using Advanced Beam Delivery
Author(s) -
Ma C,
Lin M,
Chen L,
Price R,
Li J,
Kang S,
Wang P,
Lang J
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4889643
Subject(s) - medicine , nuclear medicine , dosimetry , radiation therapy , radiation treatment planning , protocol (science) , dose rate , medical physics , radiology , pathology , alternative medicine
Purpose: Recent in vitro and in vivo experimental findings provided strong evidence that pulsed low‐dose‐rate radiotherapy (PLDR) produced equivalent tumor control as conventional radiotherapy with significantly reduced normal tissue toxicities. This work aimed to implement a PLDR clinical protocol for the management of recurrent cancers utilizing IMRT and VMAT. Methods: Our PLDR protocol requires that the daily 2Gy dose be delivered in 0.2Gy×10 pulses with a 3min interval between the pulses. To take advantage of low‐dose hyper‐radiosensitivity the mean dose to the target is set at 0.2Gy and the maximum dose is limited to 0.4Gy per pulse. Practical planning strategies were developed for IMRT and VMAT: (1) set 10 ports for IMRT and 10 arcs for VMAT with each angle/arc as a pulse; (2) set the mean dose (0.2Gy) and maximum dose (0.4Gy) to the target per pulse as hard constraints (no constraints to OARs); (3) select optimal port/arc angles to avoid OARs; and (4) use reference structures in or around target/OARs to reduce maximum dose to the target/OARs. IMRT, VMAT and 3DCRT plans were generated for 60 H&N, breast, lung, pancreas and prostate patients and compared. Results: All PLDR treatment plans using IMRT and VMAT met the dosimetry requirements of the PLDR protocol (mean target dose: 0.20Gy±0.01Gy; maximum target dose < 0.4Gy). In comparison with 3DCRT, IMRT and VMAT exhibited improved target dose conformity and OAR dose sparing. A single arc can minimize the difference in the target dose due to multi‐angle incidence although the delivery time is longer than 3DCRT and IMRT. Conclusion: IMRT and VMAT are better modalities for PLDR treatment of recurrent cancers with superior target dose conformity and critical structure sparing. The planning strategies/guidelines developed in this work are practical for IMRT/VMAT treatment planning to meet the dosimetry requirements of the PLDR protocol.