Evaluation of IGRT-Induced Imaging Doses and Secondary Cancer Risk for SBRT Early Lung Cancer Patients In Silico Study. (28th May 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Duan, Yan-Hua; Gu, Heng-Le; Yang, Xiao-Hui; Chen, Hua; Wang, Hao; Shao, Yan; Li, Xiao-Yang; Feng, Ai-Hui; Ying, Yan-Chen; Fu, Xiao-Long; Ma, Kui; Zhou, Tao; Xu, Zhi-Yong
• Is Part Of: Technology in cancer research & treatment. Volume 20(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-05-28
• Subjects: imaging dose -- MV-EPID -- kV-CBCT -- TPS -- early-stage lung cancer -- SBRT -- secondary cancer risk; Oncology -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Treatment -- Technological innovations -- Periodicals; 616.994
• DOI: 10.1177/15330338211016472
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1533-0346

Abstract

Objectives: This study performed dosimetry studies and secondary cancer risk assessments on using electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) as image guided tools for the early lung cancer patients treated with SBRT. Methods: The imaging doses from MV-EPID and kV-CBCT of the Edge accelerator were retrospectively added to sixty-one SBRT treatment plans of early lung cancer patients. The MV-EPID imaging dose (6MV Photon beam) was calculated in Pinnacle TPS, and the kV-CBCT imaging dose was simulated and calculated by modeling of the kV energy beam in TPS using Pinnacle automatic modeling program. Three types of plans, namely PlanEPID, PlanCBCT and Planorigin, were generated with incorporating doses of EPID, CBCT and no imaging, respectively, for analysis. The effects of imaging doses on dose-volume-histogram (DVH) and plan quality were analyzed, and the excess absolute risk (EAR) of secondary cancer for ipsilateral lung was evaluated. Results: The regions that received less than 50 cGy were significantly impacted by the imaging doses, while the isodose lines greater than 1000 cGy were barely changed. The DVH values of ipsilateral lung increased the most in PlanEPID, followed by PlanCBCT . Compared to Planorigin on the average, the estimated EAR of ipsilateral lung in PlanEPID increased by 3.43%, while the corresponding EAR increase in PlanCBCT was much smaller (about 0.4%). Considering only the contribution of the imaging dose, the EAR values for the ipsilateral lung due to the MV-EPID dose in 5 years, 10 years and 15 years were 1.49 cases, 2.09 cases and 2.88 cases per 10 4 PY respectively, and those due to the kV-CBCT dose were about 9 times lower, correspondingly. Conclusions: The imaging doses produced by MV-EPID and kV-CBCT had little effects on the target dose coverage. The secondary cancer risk caused by MV-EPID dose is more than 8.5 times that of kV-CBCT.