IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0133617.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adapted Prescription Dose for Monte Carlo Algorithm in Lung SBRT: Clinical Outcome on 205 Patients

Author

Listed:
  • Jean-Emmanuel Bibault
  • Xavier Mirabel
  • Thomas Lacornerie
  • Emmanuelle Tresch
  • Nick Reynaert
  • Eric Lartigau

Abstract

Purpose: SBRT is the standard of care for inoperable patients with early-stage lung cancer without lymph node involvement. Excellent local control rates have been reported in a large number of series. However, prescription doses and calculation algorithms vary to a great extent between studies, even if most teams prescribe to the D95 of the PTV. Type A algorithms are known to produce dosimetric discrepancies in heterogeneous tissues such as lungs. This study was performed to present a Monte Carlo (MC) prescription dose for NSCLC adapted to lesion size and location and compare the clinical outcomes of two cohorts of patients treated with a standard prescription dose calculated by a type A algorithm or the proposed MC protocol. Patients and Methods: Patients were treated from January 2011 to April 2013 with a type B algorithm (MC) prescription with 54 Gy in three fractions for peripheral lesions with a diameter under 30 mm, 60 Gy in 3 fractions for lesions with a diameter over 30 mm, and 55 Gy in five fractions for central lesions. Clinical outcome was compared to a series of 121 patients treated with a type A algorithm (TA) with three fractions of 20 Gy for peripheral lesions and 60 Gy in five fractions for central lesions prescribed to the PTV D95 until January 2011. All treatment plans were recalculated with both algorithms for this study. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was calculated for GTV and PTV. Local control, overall survival and toxicity were compared between the two groups. Results: 205 patients with 214 lesions were included in the study. Among these, 93 lesions were treated with MC and 121 were treated with TA. Overall survival rates were 86% and 94% at one and two years, respectively. Local control rates were 79% and 93% at one and two years respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups for overall survival (p = 0.785) or local control (p = 0.934). Fifty-six patients (27%) developed grade I lung fibrosis without clinical consequences. GTV size was a prognostic factor for overall survival (HR = 1.026, IC95% [1.01–1.041], p

Suggested Citation

  • Jean-Emmanuel Bibault & Xavier Mirabel & Thomas Lacornerie & Emmanuelle Tresch & Nick Reynaert & Eric Lartigau, 2015. "Adapted Prescription Dose for Monte Carlo Algorithm in Lung SBRT: Clinical Outcome on 205 Patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-10, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0133617
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133617
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133617
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133617&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0133617?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0133617. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.