Study on Lattice Radiotherapy Treatments (LRT) for Head and Neck Bulky Tumors

Abstract

Lattice radiotherapy (LRT) exploits various effects of radiation, such as the bystander effect and the abscopal effect, and consists on the administration of high dose fraction in small areas with large tumor masses, helping to solve the problem of treating bulky disease, especially if it is located in a critical anatomical area. The optimization of LRT treatment plans is challenging due to the difficulty to generate spots of high dose within the tumor with consequent high gradient. This study compares the plan dosimetry and delivery time of two delivery techniques VMAT and CyberKnife for LRT treatments of bulky head and neck lesions. Six patients with giant head and neck tumors who received LRT at our institution were included in this study. Target and OARs were contoured following international guidelines; to allow easy identification of the desired high gradient zones, an artificial geometrical lattice structure with spherical vertices was arranged inside the target volume (GTV), and the vertices of the lattice representing the high dose boost volumes (GTVboost) were delineated. The GTVboost and GTV were prescribed to receive 12 Gy and 3 Gy, respectively in a single fraction. Separate VMAT and CyberKnife LRT plans were optimized for each patient with lattice vertex of 0.5 diameter and center-to-center distances of 1.5 cm (LRT1.5) and 3 cm (LRT3). The dose heterogeneity was measured as the peak-to-valley dose ratio (PVDR), with the traditional definition being replaced by the D10/D90 ratio, where D10 and D90 represent the doses covering 10% and 90% of the GTV, respectively. For each plan generated, the treatment delivery time, the monitor units (MU), and the PVDR were assessed. Pre-treatment plan verifications were performed with ArcCheck array and Gafchromics film for VMAT and CyberKnife, respectively, using gamma analysis criteria of 3%-3mm. The mean PVDR obtained for VMAT LRT plans were 2.0 and 2.6 for LRT1.5 and LRT3, respectively, and 3.2 and 4.7, respectively for CyberKnife LRT plans. For each pre-treatment plan dose verification, the gamma passing rate (GPR) was higher than 95.0 %; CyberKnife delivery time and MU were more than 10 times higher than that of VMAT, nevertheless, VMAT had a lower PVDR. The detailed results are shown in the table below. CyberKnife LRT has a strong ability to place the peak dose within the target, generating a higher peak-to-valley dose ratio, however its use is partially invalidated by the long beam delivery times and the resulting high MU number; the use of the VMAT LRT technique allows clinically adequate dosimetry with acceptable delivery times.