We partner with a secure submission system to handle manuscript submissions.
Please note:
You will need an account for the submission system, which is separate to your Cambridge Core account. For login and submission support, please visit the
submission and support pages.
Please review this journal's author instructions, particularly the
preparing your materials
page, before submitting your manuscript.
Click Proceed to submission system to continue to our partner's website.
To save this undefined to your undefined account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your undefined account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
To identify treatment outcome, dose uniformity, treatment time, toxicity among 3D conformal therapy (3D-CRT), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) based on literature review.
Methods:
A literature search was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, BMC—part of Springer Nature, Google Scholar and iMEDPub Ltd with the following keywords for filtering: 3D-CRT, IMRT, VMAT, lung cancer, local control and radiobiology. A total of 14 publications were finally selected for the comparison of 3D-CRT, IMRT and VMAT to determine which technique is superior or inferior among these three.
Results:
Compared to 3D-CRT, IMRT delivers more precise treatment, has better conformal dose coverage to planning target volume (PTV) that covers gross tumour with microscopic extension, respiratory tumour motion and setup margin. 3D-CRT has large number of limitations: low overall survival (OS), large toxicity, secondary malignancies.
Conclusions:
It is difficult to choose the best technique for treating NSCLC due to patient conditions and technique availability. A high-precision treatment may improve tumour control probability (TCP) and patient’s quality of life. VMAT, whether superior or not, needs more clinical trials to treat NSCLC and requires longer dose optimisation time with the greatest benefit of rapid treatment delivery, improved patient comfort, reduced intrafraction motion and increased patient throughput compared to IMRT and 3D-CRT.
The aim of this study was to investigate the extent to which lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) treatment plans can be improved by replacing conventional flattening filter (FF) beams with flattening filter-free (FFF) beams.
Materials and methods:
We selected 15 patients who had received SBRT with conventional 6-MV photon beams for early-stage lung cancer. We imported the patients’ treatment plans into the Eclipse 13·6 treatment planning system, in which we configured the AAA dose calculation model using representative beam data for a TrueBeam accelerator operated in 6-MV FFF mode. We then created new treatment plans by replacing the conventional FF beams in the original plans with FFF beams.
Results:
The FFF plans had better target coverage than the original FF plans did. For the planning target volume, FFF plans significantly improved the D98, D95, D90, homogeneity index and uncomplicated tumour control probability. In most cases, the doses to organs at risk were lower in FFF plans. FFF plans significantly reduced the mean lung dose, V10, V20, V30, and normal tissue complication probability for the total lung and improved the dosimetric indices for the ipsilateral lung. For most patients, FFF beams achieved lower maximum doses to the oesophagus, heart and the spinal cord, and a lower chest wall V30.
Conclusions:
Compared with FF beams, FFF beams achieved lower doses to organs at risk, especially the lung, without compromising tumour coverage; in fact, FFF beams improved coverage in most cases. Thus, replacing FF beams with FFF beams can achieve a better therapeutic ratio.
To determine whether myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) changes in lung cancer patients treated with radiotherapy (RT) were detectable with late gadolinium enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (LGE CMR).
Materials and methods:
Twenty-one patients with lung cancer were evaluated pre-RT and at 2 and 6 months post-RT follow-up (FU) with MPS and LGE CMR. MPS changes in the left ventricle (LV) were analysed using the semi-quantitative summed rest score method (20 segments) and the Bull’s-eye-view technique. The LGE CMR studies were analysed for visual signs of myocardial damage (fibrosis), that is, focal LGE in the LV and cardiac function parameters.
Results:
MPS changes were detected in 7/20 patients at 2 months FU and in 8/13 patients at 6 months FU. Only one patient had a new irreversible defect judged to be caused by direct irradiation. MPS changes in two cases were deemed to be caused by attenuation. All new MPS defects were minor and no corresponding myocardial damage, or any functional changes, were evident on LGE CMR.
Findings:
The extent of MPS changes at 6 months FU appeared less prominent than in previous reports. No visual signs or functional changes corresponding to myocardial damage were detected on LGE CMR. A risk for false-positive MPS changes caused by attenuation is evident.
This study aims to compare the gating signals of patients with lung cancer recorded during the planning computed tomography scan with the ones recorded during treatment fractions. The results provide insights into how representative the respiratory signals from the planning scan are for radiation dose partitioning.
Materials and methods:
The amplitude and frequency of the respiratory signals of 29 patients with lung carcinoma were analysed and compared with the amplitude and frequency of those recorded during their planning scans. Moreover, a cross-correlation analysis was performed between the difference between the planning scan and fractions and features from the planning scan.
Results:
Two patients showed significantly different amplitude and frequency during treatment fractions compared to those from the planning scan. These patients showed low variances in frequency and amplitude during the different fractions. The difference between planning scan and fractions is correlated with the variances within the planning scan.
Findings:
Respiratory signals can differ between the planning scan and the fractions. In this case, a new planning scan may be beneficial. The respiratory signals from the planning scan may be predictive of whether the planning scan will be representative and usable as a control measure during radiotherapy fractions.