SU‐F‐T‐632: On the Use of Intensity Modulated Arc Therapy for Thoracic Vertebral Metastases SBRT Treatment

Abstract

Purpose:To retrospectively evaluate quality, efficiency and delivery accuracy of intensity modulated arc therapy (IMAT) plans for thoracic‐vertebral metastases using stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT).Methods:After obtaining approval of RPC‐benchmark plan, seven previously treated thoracic‐vertebral metastases patients with non‐coplanar hybrid arcs(NC‐HA)using 1–2 3D‐dynamic conformal partial‐arcs plus 7–9 IMRT‐beams were re‐optimized with IMAT using 3 full co‐planar arcs. Tumors were located between T2–T7. T1/T2‐weighted MRI images were co‐registered with planning‐CT. PTVs were between 24.3–240.1cc(median=48.1cc). Prescription was 30Gy in 5 fractions with 6‐MV beams at Novalis‐TX consisting of HD‐MLC.Plans were compared for target coverage:conformality index(CI),homogeneity index(HI),PTVD90. Organs‐at‐risks(OARs)was evaluated for spinal cord(Dmax, D0.35cc, and D1.2cc), esophagus(Dmax and D5cc),heart(Dmax, D15cc)and lung(V5 and V10). Dose delivery efficiency and accuracy of each IMAT plan was assessed via quality assurance(QA) plan. Beam‐on time was recorded and a gamma index was used to compare agreement between planned and measured doses.Results:SBRT IMAT plans resulted in superior CI(1.02 vs. 1.36, p=0.05) and HI (0.14 vs. 0.27, p=0.01). PTVD90 was improved but statistically insignificant (31.0 vs. 30.4Gy, p=0.38). IMAT resulted in statistically significant improvements in OARs sparing: esophagus max(22.5 vs. 27.0Gy, p=0.03), esophagus 5cc (17.6 vs. 21.5Gy, p=0.02) and heart max(13.1 vs. 15.8Gy, p=0.03). Spinal cord,lung V5 and V10 were lower but statistically insignificant. Average total MU and beam‐on time were 2598±354 vs. 3542±495 and 4.7±0.6 min vs. 7.1±1.0min for IMAT vs. NC‐HA (without accounting for couch kicks time for NC‐HA). IMAT plans demonstrated an accurate dose delivery of 95.5±1.0% for clinical gamma passing‐rate of 2%/2mm criteria on MapCHECK, that was comparable to NC‐HA plans.Conclusion:IMAT plans provided highly conformal and homogeneous dose distributions to target and reduced OARs doses compared to NC‐HA. Total MU was reduced by a factor of 1.4 and subsequently decreased treatment times significantly ‐ potentially minimizing intra‐fraction motion error and owing to patient comfort. SBRT using IMAT planning for single fraction thoracic‐vertebrae metastases will be investigated.