Relation Between Tumor Size and Range of Motion in IMRT Treatment Planning for Thoracic Lesions
- *Corresponding Author:
- Dr. Ivaylo B. Mihaylov, PhD,
Department of Radiation Oncology Rhode Island Hospital/Brown Medical Center 593 Eddy St., Providence, RI 02903,
Tel: (401) 444-8546,
Fax: (401) 444-2149,
E-mail: [email protected]
Received Date: May 04, 2010; Accepted Date: June 08, 2010; Published Date: June 08, 2010
Citation: Mihaylov IB, Lerma FA, Moros EG (2010) Relation Between Tumor Size and Range of Motion in IMRT Treatment Planning for Thoracic Lesions. J Cancer Sci Ther 2: 095-099. doi:10.4172/1948-5956.1000031
Copyright: © 2010 Mihaylov IB, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Purpose: To evaluate the relation between tumor size/volume, tumor range of motion, and healthy lung volume in light of radiotherapy motion management paradigm. Materials and Methods: Four patient data sets were considered in this investigation. Each patient underwent time resolved (4D) CT data scan. Mid-ventilation CT data sets, with nominal lung volumes ranging from ~3000 cm3 to ~6000 cm3, were considered for treatment planning. Spheres with pre-specified radii were auto-contoured in the left lower lobes as simulated planning target volumes (PTVs) for each patient. Motion in superior-inferior direction was superimposed on the simulated spherical PTVs, such that motion-inclusive ITVs were generated. Nine-field IMRT treatment plans were created for all lung volumes, different combinations of simulated PTV spherical size and ranges of motion. Three dose levels of 60 Gy, 70 Gy, and 80 Gy were utilized. The doses were prescribed to 95% of the ITV. Simulated PTV sizes and ranges of motion were varied until prescriptions were met, given that organs at risk (OARs) were spared. The OAR constraints were: 40 Gy to 1% of the cord and 30% of the heart, as well as 20 Gy and 30 Gy to 30% and 20% of benign lung, respectively. These constraints, representative for 2 Gy per fraction fractionation schemes, are commonly used clinically. The treatment plans were deemed clinically acceptable when standard deviation of the dose across the ITV was less than 3% of the prescription dose in addition to fulfillment of the OAR constraints. Results: For each nominal lung volume three look-up curves, corresponding to the prescription dose levels were generated. The plots related the PTV sphere sizes with its range of motion. In addition, correlation between the absolute tumor volume and its range of motion was also established and presented in graphical format. Conclusions: The motion management threshold of 0.5 cm found in the literature is reasonable. However, in some cases, depending on the tumor size, tumor range of motion, and nominal lung volumes, it might be too restrictive. In the determination of the most appropriate individualized treatment planning approach all factors such as tumor and lung volumes, tumor range of motion and patient tolerance toward the treatment technique need to be assessed.