Fifty-sixth annual meeting of the American association of physicists in medicine
SU-F-BRD-05: Dosimetric Comparison of Protocol-Based SBRT Lung Treatment Modalities: Statistically Significant VMAT Advantages Over Fixed- Beam IMRT
The purpose of this study is to inter-compare and find statistically significant differences between flattened field fixed-beam (FB) IMRT with flattening-filter free (FFF) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for stereotactic body radiation therapy SBRT.
SBRT plans using FB IMRT and FFF VMAT were generated for fifteen SBRT lung patients using 6 MV beams. For each patient, both IMRT and VMAT plans were created for comparison. Plans were generated utilizing RTOG 0915 (peripheral, 10 patients) and RTOG 0813 (medial, 5 patients) lung protocols. Target dose, critical structure dose, and treatment time were compared and tested for statistical significance. Parameters of interest included prescription isodose surface coverage, target dose heterogeneity, high dose spillage (location and volume), low dose spillage (location and volume), lung dose spillage, and critical structure maximum- and volumetric-dose limits.
For all criteria, we found equivalent or higher conformality with VMAT plans as well as reduced critical structure doses. Several differences passed a Student's t-test of significance: VMAT reduced the high dose spillage, evaluated with conformality index (CI), by an average of 9.4%±15.1% (p=0.030) compared to IMRT. VMAT plans reduced the lung volume receiving 20 Gy by 16.2%±15.0% (p=0.016) compared with IMRT. For the RTOG 0915 peripheral lesions, the volumes of lung receiving 12.4 Gy and 11.6 Gy were reduced by 27.0%±13.8% and 27.5%±12.6% (for both, p<0.001) in VMAT plans. Of the 26 protocol pass/fail criteria, VMAT plans were able to achieve an average of 0.2±0.7 (p=0.026) more constraints than the IMRT plans.
FFF VMAT has dosimetric advantages over fixed beam IMRT for lung SBRT. Significant advantages included increased dose conformity, and reduced organs-at-risk doses. The overall improvements in terms of protocol pass/fail criteria were more modest and will require more patient data to establish difference trends of more statistical significance.