title: Multi-institutional comparison of treatment planning using stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma - benchmark for a prospective multi-institutional study.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Several single institution phase I and phase II trials of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) for liver tumors have reported promising results and high local control rates of over 90%. However, there are wide variations in dose and fractionation due to different prescription policies and treatment methods across SABR series that have been published to date.This study aims to assess and minimize inter-institutional variations in treatment planning using SABR for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in preparation for a prospective multi-institutional study.
  
  
  METHODS
  Four institutions (A-D) participated in this study. Each institution was provided with data from four cases, including planning and diagnostic CT images and clinical information, and asked to implement three plans (a practice plan and protocol plans 1 and 2). Practice plans were established based on the current treatment protocols at each institution. In protocol plan 1, each institution was instructed to prescribe 40 Gy in five fractions within 95% of the planning target volume (PTV). After protocol plan 1 was evaluated, we made protocol plan 2, The additional regulation to protocol plan 1 was that 40 Gy in five fractions was prescribed to a 70% isodose line of the global maximum dose within the PTV. Planning methods and dose volume histograms (DVHs) including the median PTV D50 (Dm50) and the median normal liver volume that received 20 Gy or higher (Vm20) were compared.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In the practice plan, Dm50 was 48.4 Gy (range, 43.6-51.2 Gy). Vm20 was 15.9% (range, 12.2-18.9%). In protocol plan 1, the Dm50 at institution A was higher (51.2 Gy) than the other institutions (42.0-42.2 Gy) due to differences in dose specifications. In protocol plan 2, variations in DVHs were reduced. The Dm50 was 51.9 Gy (range, 51.0-53.1 Gy), and the Vm20 was 12.3% (range, 10.4-13.2%). The homogeneity index was nearly equivalent at all institutions.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There were notable inter-institutional differences in practice planning using SABR to treat HCC. The range of PTV and normal liver DVH values was reduced when the dose was prescribed to an isodose line within the PTV. In multi-institutional studies, detailed dose specifications based on collaboration are necessary.
authors: Department of Radiation Oncology, Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan.
authors: Takahisa
authors: T
authors: Eriguchi
authors: Atsuya
authors: A
authors: Takeda
authors: Yohei
authors: Y
authors: Oku
authors: Satoshi
authors: S
authors: Ishikura
authors: Tomoki
authors: T
authors: Kimura
authors: Shuichi
authors: S
authors: Ozawa
authors: Takeo
authors: T
authors: Nakashima
authors: Yukinori
authors: Y
authors: Matsuo
authors: Mitsuhiro
authors: M
authors: Nakamura
authors: Yasuo
authors: Y
authors: Matsumoto
authors: Sadanori
authors: S
authors: Yamazaki
authors: Naoko
authors: N
authors: Sanuki
authors: Yoshinori
authors: Y
authors: Ito
mesh_terms: D019985:Benchmarking; D006528:Carcinoma, Hepatocellular / Q000532:radiotherapy / Q000601:surgery*; D006801:Humans; D008113:Liver Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy / Q000601:surgery*; D011446:Prospective Studies; D016634:Radiosurgery / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards*; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards*
references: Radiother Oncol. 2010 Jan;94(1):42-6
references: 20022394
references: Eur J Cancer. 2012 May;48(7):1048-54
references: 22387181
references: Radiother Oncol. 1999 Dec;53(3):247-55
references: 10660205
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Jul 1;83(3):782-90
references: 22425219
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Nov 15;81(4):e447-53
references: 21645977
references: BMC Cancer. 2010 Sep 03;10:475
references: 20813065
references: J Hepatol. 2012 Apr;56(4):908-43
references: 22424438
references: Int J Clin Oncol. 2007 Feb;12(1):3-7
references: 17380434
references: Pract Radiat Oncol. 2012 Jan-Mar;2(1):46-53
references: 24674036
references: Clin Transl Oncol. 2010 Mar;12(3):218-25
references: 20231127
references: Med Phys. 2010 Aug;37(8):4078-101
references: 20879569
references: Acta Oncol. 2006;45(7):831-7
references: 16982547
references: Hepatology. 2011 Mar;53(3):1020-2
references: 21374666
references: Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2010 Oct;9(5):479-87
references: 20815419
references: J Clin Oncol. 2009 Apr 1;27(10):1585-91
references: 19255313
references: Radiother Oncol. 2012 Oct;105(1):4-8
references: 22985777
references: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013 Mar 20;105(6):387-93
references: 23468460
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Jul 1;53(3):566-73
references: 12062598
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997 Feb 1;37(3):731-6
references: 9112473
references: J Clin Oncol. 2008 Feb 1;26(4):657-64
references: 18172187
references: Radiat Oncol. 2009 Jan 12;4:1
references: 19138400
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Jun 1;68(2):416-25
references: 17363190