Abstract
Purpose: To compare five liver metastasis stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) plans optimised in fourteen centres with 3D-Conformal-RT, IMRT, VMAT, CyberKnife and Tomotherapy and identify possible dosimetric differences. Methods: Dose prescription was 75 Gy in 3 fractions, normalised at 67%-95% isodose. Results: Excluding few cases, all institutions achieved the planning objectives. Differences up to 40% and 25% in mean dose to liver and PTV were found. No significant correlations between technological factors and DVH for target and OARs were observed; the optimisation strategies selected by the planners played a key role in the planning procedure. Conclusions: The human factor and the constraints imposed to the target volume have a greater dosimetric impact than treatment planning and radiation delivery technology in stereotactic treatment of liver metastases. Significant differences found both in terms of dosimetric target coverage and OAR sparing should be taken into consideration before starting a multi-institutional SARB clinical trial.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 277-83 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | Physica Medica |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Jan 1 2016 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Dosimetry
- Liver
- Multicentric clinical trial
- Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR)
- Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT)
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Biophysics
- Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
- Physics and Astronomy(all)
Cite this
Multicentre treatment planning inter-comparison in a national context : The liver stereotactic ablative radiotherapy case. / Esposito, Marco; Maggi, Giulia; Marino, Carmelo; Bottalico, Laura; Cagni, Elisabetta; Carbonini, Claudia; Casale, Michelina; Clemente, Stefania; D'Alesio, Valentina; Fedele, David; Giglioli, Francesca Romana; Landoni, Valeria; Martinotti, Anna; Nigro, Roberta; Strigari, Lidia; Villaggi, Elena; Mancosu, Pietro.
In: Physica Medica, 01.01.2016, p. 277-83.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Multicentre treatment planning inter-comparison in a national context
T2 - The liver stereotactic ablative radiotherapy case
AU - Esposito, Marco
AU - Maggi, Giulia
AU - Marino, Carmelo
AU - Bottalico, Laura
AU - Cagni, Elisabetta
AU - Carbonini, Claudia
AU - Casale, Michelina
AU - Clemente, Stefania
AU - D'Alesio, Valentina
AU - Fedele, David
AU - Giglioli, Francesca Romana
AU - Landoni, Valeria
AU - Martinotti, Anna
AU - Nigro, Roberta
AU - Strigari, Lidia
AU - Villaggi, Elena
AU - Mancosu, Pietro
PY - 2016/1/1
Y1 - 2016/1/1
N2 - Purpose: To compare five liver metastasis stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) plans optimised in fourteen centres with 3D-Conformal-RT, IMRT, VMAT, CyberKnife and Tomotherapy and identify possible dosimetric differences. Methods: Dose prescription was 75 Gy in 3 fractions, normalised at 67%-95% isodose. Results: Excluding few cases, all institutions achieved the planning objectives. Differences up to 40% and 25% in mean dose to liver and PTV were found. No significant correlations between technological factors and DVH for target and OARs were observed; the optimisation strategies selected by the planners played a key role in the planning procedure. Conclusions: The human factor and the constraints imposed to the target volume have a greater dosimetric impact than treatment planning and radiation delivery technology in stereotactic treatment of liver metastases. Significant differences found both in terms of dosimetric target coverage and OAR sparing should be taken into consideration before starting a multi-institutional SARB clinical trial.
AB - Purpose: To compare five liver metastasis stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) plans optimised in fourteen centres with 3D-Conformal-RT, IMRT, VMAT, CyberKnife and Tomotherapy and identify possible dosimetric differences. Methods: Dose prescription was 75 Gy in 3 fractions, normalised at 67%-95% isodose. Results: Excluding few cases, all institutions achieved the planning objectives. Differences up to 40% and 25% in mean dose to liver and PTV were found. No significant correlations between technological factors and DVH for target and OARs were observed; the optimisation strategies selected by the planners played a key role in the planning procedure. Conclusions: The human factor and the constraints imposed to the target volume have a greater dosimetric impact than treatment planning and radiation delivery technology in stereotactic treatment of liver metastases. Significant differences found both in terms of dosimetric target coverage and OAR sparing should be taken into consideration before starting a multi-institutional SARB clinical trial.
KW - Dosimetry
KW - Liver
KW - Multicentric clinical trial
KW - Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR)
KW - Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT)
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84951189864&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84951189864&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.09.009
DO - 10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.09.009
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84951189864
SP - 277
EP - 283
JO - Physica Medica
JF - Physica Medica
SN - 1120-1797
ER -