Voxel-Level BED Corrected Dosimetric and Radiobiological Assessment of 2 Kinds of Hybrid Radiotherapy Planning Methods for Stage III NSCLC

Background/purpose: To access the comparative dosimetric and radiobiological advantages of two methods of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)-based hybrid radiotherapy planning for stage III nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Two hybrid planning methods were respectively characterized by conventional fraction radiotherapy (CFRT) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and CFRT and simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) planning. All plans were retrospectively completed using the 2 methods for 20 patients with stage III NSCLC. CFRT and SBRT dose regimes 2 Gy × 30 f and 12.5 Gy × 4 f were, respectively, used for planning target volume of lymph node (PTV LN ) and planning target volume of the primary tumor (PTV PT ), while dose regimes 2 Gy × 26 f for PTV LN and sequential 2 Gy × 4 f for PTV LN combined with 12.5 Gy × 4 f for PTV PT were adopted for CFRT and SIB plans. SBRT and SIB EQD 2 dose were calculated voxel by voxel, and then, respectively, superimposed with 30-fraction and 26-fraction CFRT plan dose to achieve biological equivalent dose (BED) dosimetric parameters of CFRT and SBRT and CFRT and SIB plans. Tumor control probability (TCP)/normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) was, respectively, calculated by equivalent uniform dose/Lyman–Kutcher–Burman models. BED plan parameters and TCP/NTCP were analyzed between 2 methods of hybrid planning. Primary tumor/lymph node (LN)/total TCP values were, respectively, evaluated as a function of the radiation dose needed to control 50% of tumor (TCD 50 ) for 20 patients. Dosimetric errors were analyzed by nontransit electronic portal imaging device dosimetry measurement during hybrid plan delivery. Results: Statistically lower BED plan parameters of PTV LN D 2 and homogeneity index resulted in slightly lower averaged LN/total TCP curves by CFRT and SIB planning. The gaps between Max and Min LN/total TCP curves were significantly closer for CFRT and SIB planning, which indicated better robustness of LN/total TCPs. A lower esophagus dose resulted in a lower esophagus NTCP by CFRT and SIB planning, which may be compromised by 1 week shorter overall treatment time by CFRT and SIB irradiation. Spinal cord D max was significantly reduced by CFRT and SIB plans. The dose verification results of the subplans involved in hybrid plans were acceptable, which showed that the 2 methods of hybrid planning could be delivered accurately in our center. Conclusion: CFRT and SIB plannings have more advantages on BED plan parameters and TCP/NTCP than CFRT and SBRT planning, and both methods of IMRT-based hybrid planning could be executed accurately for stage III NSCLC. The effectiveness of the results needs to be validated in the hybrid trial.