| Home | E-Submission | Sitemap | Contact Us
top_img
J Korean Soc Ther Radiol Oncol > Volume 28(4); 2010 > Article
The Journal of the Korean Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology 2010;28(4): 238-248. doi: https://doi.org/10.3857/jkstro.2010.28.4.238
Comparison of Three- and Four-dimensional Robotic Radiotherapy Treatment Plans for Lung Cancers
Gyu Young Chai, Young Kyung Lim, Ki Mun Kang, Bae Gwon Jeong, In Bong Ha, Kyung Bum Park, Jin Myung Jung, Dongwook Kim
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Jinju, Korea. bremst@empal.com
2Department of Neurosurgery, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Jinju, Korea.
3Department of Radiation Oncology, Kyung Hee University International Medical Service, Seoul, Korea.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE:
To compare the dose distributions between three-dimensional (3D) and four-dimensional (4D) radiation treatment plans calculated by Ray-tracing or the Monte Carlo algorithm, and to highlight the difference of dose calculation between two algorithms for lung heterogeneity correction in lung cancers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
Prospectively gated 4D CTs in seven patients were obtained with a Brilliance CT64-Channel scanner along with a respiratory bellows gating device. After 4D treatment planning with the Ray Tracing algorithm in Multiplan 3.5.1, a CyberKnife stereotactic radiotherapy planning system, 3D Ray Tracing, 3D and 4D Monte Carlo dose calculations were performed under the same beam conditions (same number, directions, monitor units of beams). The 3D plan was performed in a primary CT image setting corresponding to middle phase expiration (50%). Relative dose coverage, D95 of gross tumor volume and planning target volume, maximum doses of tumor, and the spinal cord were compared for each plan, taking into consideration the tumor location.
RESULTS:
According to the Monte Carlo calculations, mean tumor volume coverage of the 4D plans was 4.4% higher than the 3D plans when tumors were located in the lower lobes of the lung, but were 4.6% lower when tumors were located in the upper lobes of the lung. Similarly, the D95 of 4D plans was 4.8% higher than 3D plans when tumors were located in the lower lobes of lung, but was 1.7% lower when tumors were located in the upper lobes of lung. This tendency was also observed at the maximum dose of the spinal cord. Lastly, a 30% reduction in the PTV volume coverage was observed for the Monte Carlo calculation compared with the Ray-tracing calculation.
CONCLUSION:
3D and 4D robotic radiotherapy treatment plans for lung cancers were compared according to a dosimetric viewpoint for a tumor and the spinal cord. The difference of tumor dose distributions between 3D and 4D treatment plans was only significant when large tumor movement and deformation was suspected. Therefore, 4D treatment planning is only necessary for large tumor motion and deformation. However, a Monte Carlo calculation is always necessary, independent of tumor motion in the lung.
Key Words: Lung cancer, Robotic radiotherapy, Four-dimensional radiation treatment plan, Monte Carlo algorithm
Editorial Office
Department of Radiation Oncology,
Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine,
81 Irwon-Ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06351, Korea
TEL: +82-2-3410-2612  E-mail: rojeditor@gmail.com
Copyright © The Korean Society for Radiation Oncology. All rights reserved.                      developed in m2community
Close layer
prev next