Conformal radiotherapy of Stage III non-small cell lung cancer: a class solution involving non-coplanar intensity-modulated beams
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 29, 2026
Dynamic Lung Tumor Tracking for Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiation Therapy
Published on: June 7, 2015
S Derycke1, W R De Gersem, B B Van Duyse
1Division of Radiotherapy, University Hospital, (R-UZG), Gent, Belgium.
Purpose:
We developed a semiautomatic class solution to irradiate centrally located Stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), involving a beam intensity modulation technique and optimization using a biophysical cost function.
Methods And Materials:
Treatment for 10 patients with Stage III NSCLC was planned, using a conventional three- or four-beam three-dimensional (3D) technique and two techniques involving, respectively, seven (BIM1) and five (BIM2) noncoplanar beam incidences with intensity modulation. Two planning target volumes were defined: PTV1 included macroscopic tumor volume and PTV2 included macroscopic and microscopic disease. Beams were divided into beam parts (segments) and their outlines were defined during virtual simulation. Optimization using a biophysical cost function determined beam weights, segment weights, and wedge angles. Biological end points included tumor control probability of both target volumes (TCP1 and TCP2) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of heart, lung, and spinal cord. The resulting uncomplicated local control probability (UCLP) was calculated. Physical end points included dose at PTV1 expressed as a dose minimum and dose maximum. Target-dose inhomogeneity was constrained in all plans.
Results:
Concerning tumor evaluation, TCP1 was 74% (range 54-89%) for the 3D plan, 78.0% (range 62-94%) for BIM1, and 86.0% (range 59-93%) for BIM2. TCP1*TCP2 was, respectively, 67.0% (range 39-81%), 73.0% (range 56-94%), and 81.0% (range 54-93%). Minimum doses to PTV1 were 85, 80, and 88 Gy with the three respective techniques, while dose maxima were 89, 101, and 100 Gy. NTCPs of lung were 45.0% (range 11-75%) for 3D, 19.5% (range 8-59%) for BIM1, and 24.5% (range 3-61%) for BIM2. NTCPs of heart and spinal cord were comparable for all techniques. ULCPs were 37.0% (range 9-73%), 52.5% (range 22-86%), and 60.0% (range 20-85%), respectively. Applying physical limits to ensure clinical safety, minimum doses at PTV1 were recalculated. These were 72, 71, and 74 Gy for 3D, BIM1, and BIM2, respectively.
Conclusion:
The BIM2 plan is a candidate class solution for dose escalation studies in centrally located Stage III NSCLC.
