Tracking, gating, free-breathing, which technique to use for lung stereotactic treatments? A dosimetric comparison

Abstract

The management of breath-induced tumor motion is a major challenge for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Three techniques are currently available for these treatments: tracking (T), gating (G) and free-breathing (FB). To evaluate the dosimetric differences between these three treatment techniques for lung SBRT. Pretreatment 4DCT data were acquired for 10 patients and sorted into 10 phases of a breathing cycle, such as 0% and 50% phases defined respectively as the inhalation and exhalation maximum. GTVph, PTVph (=GTVph + 3 mm) and the ipsilateral lung were contoured on each phase. For the tracking technique, 9 fixed fields were adjusted to each PTVph for the 10 phases. The gating technique was studied with 3 exhalation phases (40%, 50% and 60%). For the free-breathing technique, ITVFB was created from a sum of all GTVph and a 3 mm margin was added to define a PTVFB. Fields were adjusted to PTVFB and dose distributions were calculated on the average intensity projection (AIP) CT. Then, the beam arrangement with the same monitor units was planned on each CT phase. The 3 modalities were evaluated using DVHs of each GTVph, the homogeneity index and the volume of the ipsilateral lung receiving 20 Gy (V20Gy). The FB system improved the target coverage by increasing Dmean (75.87(T)–76.08(G)–77.49(FB)Gy). Target coverage was slightly more homogeneous, too (HI: 0.17(T and G)–0.15(FB)). But the lung was better protected with the tracking system (V20Gy: 3.82(T)–4.96(G)–6.34(FB)%). Every technique provides plans with a good target coverage and lung protection. While irradiation with free-breathing increases doses to GTV, irradiation with the tracking technique spares better the lung but can dramatically increase the treatment complexity.