Development of Model Plans in Three Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy for Brain Tumors

Pyo, Hongryull; Lee, Sanghoon; Kim, Gwi Eon; Keum, Kichang; Chang, Sekyung; Suh, Chang Ok

Abstract

PURPOSE: Three dimensional conformal radiotherapy planning is being used widely for the treatment of patients with brain tumor. However, it takes much time to develop an optimal treatment plan, therefore, it is difficult to apply this technique to all patients. To increase the efficiency of this technique, we need to develop standard radiotherapy plans for each site of the brain. Therefore we developed several 3 dimensional conformal radiotherapy plans (3D plans) for tumors at each site of brain, compared them with each other, and with 2 dimensional radiotherapy plans. Finally model plans for each site of the brain were decided.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Imaginary tumors, with sizes commonly observed in the clinic, were designed for each site of the brain and drawn on CT images. The planning target volumes (PTVs) were as follows; temporal tumor-5.7x8.2x7.6 cm, suprasellar tumor-3x4x4.1 cm, thalamic tumor-3.1x5.9x3.7 cm, frontoparietal tumor-5.5x7x5.5 cm, and occipitoparietal tumor-5x5.5x5 cm. Plans using parallel opposed 2 portals and/or 3 portals including fronto-vertex and 2 lateral fields were developed manually as the conventional 2D plans, and 3D noncoplanar conformal plans were developed using beam's eye view and the automatic block drawing tool. Total tumor dose was 54 Gy for a suprasellar tumor, 59.4 Gy and 72 Gy for the other tumors. All dose plans (including 2D plans) were calculated using 3D plan software. Developed plans were compared with each other using dose-volume histograms (DVH), normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) and variable dose statistic values (minimum, maximum and mean dose, D5, V83, V85 and V95). Finally a best radiotherapy plan for each site of brain was selected.
RESULTS
1) Temporal tumor; NTCPs and DVHs of the normal tissue of all 3D plans were superior to 2D plans and this trend was more definite when total dose was escalated to 72 Gy (NTCPs of normal brain 2D plans : 27%, 8% 3D plans : 1%, 1%). Various dose statistic values did not show any consistent trend. A 3D plan using 3 noncoplanar portals was selected as a model radiotherapy plan. 2) Suprasellar tumor; NTCPs of all 3D plans and 2D plans did not show significant difference because the total dose of this tumor was only 54 Gy. DVHs of normal brain and brainstem were significantly different for different plans. D5, V85, V95 and mean values showed some consistent trend that was compatible with DVH. All 3D plans were superior to 2D plans even when 3 portals (fronto-vertex and 2 lateral fields) were used for 2D plans. A 3D plan using 7 portals was worse than plans using fewer portals. A 3D plan using 5 noncoplanar portals was selected as a model plan. 3) Thalamic tumor; NTCPs of all 3D plans were lower than the 2D plans when the total dose was elevated to 72 Gy. DVHs of normal tissues showed similar results. V83, V85, V95 showed some consistent differences between plans but not between 3D plans. 3D plans using 5 noncoplanar portals were selected as a model plan. 4) Parietal (fronto- and occipito-) tumors; all NTCPs of the normal brain in 3D plans were lower than in 2D plans. DVH also showed the same results. V83, V85, V95 showed consistent trends with NTCP and DVH. 3D plans using 5 portals for frontoparietal tumor and 6 portals for occipitoparietal tumor were selected as model plans.
CONCLUSION
NTCP and DVH showed reasonable differences between plans and were thought to be useful for comparing plans. All 3D plans were superior to 2D plans. Best 3D plans were selected for tumors in each site of brain using NTCP, DVH and finally by the planner's decision.