Feasibility of using intravenous contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scans in lung cancer treatment planning

Background and purpose

To investigate the feasibility of using intravenous contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scans in 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment planning for lung cancers, respectively.

Materials and methods

Twelve patients with bulky lung tumors and 14 patients with small lung tumors were retrospectively analyzed. Each patient took two sets of CT in the same position with active breathing control (ABC) technique before and after intravenous contrast agent (CA) injections. Bulky tumors were planned with 3D-CRT, while SBRT plans were generated for patients with small tumors based on CT scans with intravenous CA. In addition, IMRT plans were generated for patients with bulky tumors to continue on a planning study. All plans were copied and replaced on the scans without intravenous CA. The radiation doses calculated from the two sets of CTs were compared with regard to planning volumes (PTV), the organ at-risk (OAR) and the lungs using Wilcoxon’s signed rank test.

Results

In comparisons for 3D-CRT plans, CT scans with intravenous CA reduced the mean dose and the maximum dose of PTV with significant differences (p < 0.05) that were within 1.0%. Comparing IMRT and SBRT plans, CT scans with intravenous CA obviously increased the minimum irradiation dose and dose of 95% volume of target received (D₉₅) for targets, respectively (p < 0.05). There was no statistical significance for lung parameters between two sets of scans in SBRT plans and IMRT plans.

Conclusions

The enhanced CT scans can be used for both target delineation and treatment planning in 3D-CRT. The dose difference caused by intravenous CA is small. But for SBRT and IMRT, the minimum irradiation dose in targets may be estimated to be increased up to 2.71% while the maximum dose may be estimated to be decreased up to 1.36%. However, the difference in dose distribution in most cases were found to be clinical tolerable.