Pract Radiat Oncol 2018 Sep - Oct;8(5):e355-e363. Epub 2018 Mar 1.
Department of Radiation Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Agency-Abbotsford Center, Canada; Division of Radiation Oncology and Developmental Radiotherapeutics, University of British Columbia, Canada. Electronic address:
Purpose: The purpose of this article was to generate an algorithm to calculate radiobiological endpoints and composite indices and use them to compare volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) techniques in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer.
Methods And Materials: The study included 25 patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with 3D-CRT at our center between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2014. The planner generated VMAT plans using clones of the original computed tomography scans and regions of interest volumes, which did not include the original 3D plans. Both 3D-CRT and VMAT plans were generated using the same dose-volume constraint worksheet. The dose-volume histogram parameters for planning target volume and relevant organs at risk (OAR) were reviewed. The calculation engine was written in the R programming language; the user interface was developed with the "shiny" R Web library. Dose-volume histogram data were imported into the calculation engine and tumor control probability (TCP), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), composite cardiopulmonary toxicity index (CPTI), morbidity index: MI = ∑(w ∗ NTCP), uncomplicated TCP (UTCP=TCP∗∏k=1#ofOARs1-NTCP100, and therapeutic gain (TG): ie, TG = TCP ∗ (100 - MI) were calculated.
Results: TCP was better with 3D-CRT (12.62% vs 11.71%, P < .001), whereas VMAT demonstrated superior NTCP esophagus (4.45% vs 7.39%, P = .02). NTCP spinal cord (0.001% vs 0.009%, P = .001), and NTCP heart/perfusion defect (44.57% vs 56.42%, P = .016). There was no difference in NTCP lung (6.27% vs 7.62%, P = .221) and NTCP heart/pericarditis (0.001% vs 0.15%, P = .129) between 2 techniques. VMAT showed substantial improvement in morbidity index (11.06% vs. 14.31%, P = 0.01), CPTI (47.59% vs 59.41%, P = .03), TG (P = .035), and trend toward superiority in UTCP (5.89 vs 4.75, P=.057).
Conclusion: The study highlights the utility of the radiobiological algorithm and summary indices in comparative plan evaluation and demonstrates benefits of VMAT over 3D-CRT.