In an ideal world, radiation treatment beams would fully encompass
the target tissue and exclude all nontarget normal tissues. In
practice, however, this is impossible due to the intimate
relationship between tumors and surrounding normal structures.
Radiation treatment planning, therefore, is based on a compromise
between tumor and normal tissue considerations. The radiation
oncologists traditional approach to this problem is to:
(1) Review appropriate clinical and radiographic information to
(2) Choose appropriate treatment beam orientations.
(3) Under fluoroscopic guidance, orient the treatment beams onto the
patient so that the fields include the defined target volume, and
obtain simulation films.
(4) Shape treatment beams based on the clinicians knowledge of
the location of the target and normal tissues, typically by drawing
on the simulation films.
This traditional approach, however, has several limitations.
First, it is extremely difficult for most radiation oncologists to
accurately assimilate complex three-dimensional (3D) anatomic data
such as that obtained with computed tomography (CT), magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), and
single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), unless the target
is bound by radiographic landmarks (for example, the sella). The
inability to precisely understand the often complex 3D relationships
among a variety of structures limits the physicians ability to
conceive of optimal beams.
Second, because 3D diagnostic information is usually conveyed with a
series of axial images, it is easier to conceive of beams that lie
within the transverse plane. Nonaxial beams may be therapeutically
advantageous, but they are more difficult to visualize, and may be
underutilized by the radiation oncologist.
Third, even if the optimal beam is conceived, it is very
difficult to accurately set up that beam in the simulator room. The
physician is limited by the need to relate the 3D diagnostic data to
the planar fluoroscopic images.
Three-dimensional treatment planning broadly refers to a variety of
tools and procedures that facilitate the use of 3D data during the
planning process. Different approaches to this process have been
taken.[1-4] In 1991, we implemented an approach to 3D treatment
planning at Duke University that was developed and initially
implemented at the University of North Carolina (UNC) in the 1980s.
Initial clinical results from UNC have been reported.[5-7] A brief
outline of the process used at Duke is as follows:
(1) Three-dimensional imaging (eg, CT) is obtained with the patient
in an immobilization device that is used throughout treatment. A
reference coordinate system is defined and marked on the
immobilization device (and, possibly, on the patient as well).
(2) The patient returns home and the treatment planning proceeds on
3D imaging data sets.
(3) Structures of interest, targets, and normal tissues are
identified on the images.
(4) Treatment-planning software (initially GRATIS [Sherouse Systems
Incorporated], and more recently, PLUNC [Plan University of North
Carolina]) is used to view the 3D relationship between structures of
interest from any direction (including axial and nonaxial
orientations). Information from different diagnostic imaging
modalities can be viewed.
(5) Beam orientations are selected and beams are shaped, based on the
projection of the structures of interest as seen along the
(6) Doses are calculated and adjustments in beam weights, wedges,
blocks, and beam orientations are made as desired in an iterative fashion.
(7) Digitally reconstructed radiographs of each beam are generated
(including the block shape and desired structures) and can be used in
lieu of physical simulator films.
(8) Setup instructions to facilitate the implementation of treatment
beams at the physical simulator and treatment machine are provided
and include field size, gantry, collimator, and table position
(relative to the predetermined coordinate system).
The 3D treatment planning tools evolved, in part, as use of the
systems identified areas that needed improvement. Recent additions to
the planning software include the use of predetermined beam
templates, viewing of real-time digitally reconstructed radiographs,
and the ability for multimodality imaging.
Performing the treatment planning on the image data set reduces the
stress and associated practical limitations of having the patient on
the simulator table. Planning that considers beams from any
orientation can be performed at a comfortable pace. The information
provided by the treatment planning system parallels that provided by
the physical simulator. Thus, the physical simulation may be omitted.
In most instances, however, a physical simulation is performed to
obtain a set of simulator films (that do not have the reconstruction
artifact of the digitally reconstructed radiographs) and, in some
cases, to verify that the beams are implementable and clinically
appropriate. An additional consideration is that the physical
simulation provides an opportunity to assess
respiratory/diaphragmatic movements not readily appreciated on the CT
If the physical simulation is omitted, the first day on the treatment
machine essentially serves as the simulation and will generally take
more time than a typical treatment. Thus, the choice to skip the
session in the physical simulator is related to time restrictions on
use of the simulator vs use of the treatment machine.
The goals of this article are to:
(1) Describe our initial experience with 3D radiation treatment
planning in approximately 1,500 patients.
(2) Report the results of a physician survey assessing the perceived
utility of 3D treatment planning in 856 of these patiens.
(3) Review the rationale for, and our experience with, incorporating
physiology into the 3D planning process.
(4) Discuss some of the challenges and hazards of 3D planning.
The number of patients who underwent 3D treatment planning per year
from 1991 through 1998 is shown in Figure
1. For the 856 patients treated between March 1995 and 1998, the
treating physicians were asked to qualitatively assess the perceived
benefits of 3D treatment planning for each case. Surveys were
delivered immediately following completion of radiation therapy, and
80% of the surveys were returned.
The questions and a summary of the results are shown in Table
1. The rate of affirmative answers to the questions is a minimum
value since all missing answers were assumed to be negative. The
results reported are for the entire patient population and for the
largest subsets of patients (ie, those with lung, prostate, and brain
For patients with prostate cancer, the use of 3D planning tools
altered the shape of the radiation beams, but generally not their
orientation. For patients with lung cancer, 3D planning tools led to
atypical beam orientations and gave the physician confidence to treat
patients with unconventionally high radiation doses. No notable
differences were seen over time, probably because the surveys were
started several years after the implementation of 3D planning (ie,
after the steep learning curve).
The extra time spent by the physician per prostate cancer case was
only 30 minutes, probably due to the use of a conventional
four-field box technique in almost all cases. The brain and lung
cancer cases required more time since unusual beam orientations,
typically with field reductions, were commonly used.
The utility of 3D treatment planning is not limited to dose
escalation. In fact, a better understanding of the 3D anatomic
relationships between the target and normal tissues likely improves
the treatment planning process, even when conventional beam
orientations and target doses are used. Simply placing the treatment
isocenter and beams in their intended location is a worthwhile goal,
as illustrated by the survey results: Sixty-seven percent of the
surveys indicated that the additional effort was worthwhile, even
though dose escalation was performed in 20% of cases. In about 65% of
cases, it was believed that 3D planning reduced the volume of normal
tissue irradiated and improved the therapeutic ratio. This rate was
lowest in patients with brain tumors, since they frequently were
treated with large opposed lateral fields.
Although it is beyond the scope of this article to outline the
potential benefits of 3D planning at all disease sites, our
experience with the process at certain sites deserves mention. For
cancers of the paranasal sinuses, a comparison of 3D planned beams to
conventional beam arrangements suggests a dramatic benefit
attributable to 3D planning. The software allows the use of nonaxial
beams that markedly reduce the dose to the optic structures. The
3D tools facilitate the use of conformally shaped tangent fields that
limit the volume of heart irradiated in patients with breast
cancer.[10-11] We have developed beam bouquetsie,
multiple noncoplanar beams that provide rapid dose gradients at
target edges similar to what can be achieved with radiosurgery
Acknowledgment: Thanks to Jane Hoppenworth for her skillful
assistance with data acquisition, and to the University of North
Carolina Department of Radiation Oncology for software support.
1. Lichter AS, Ten Haken RK: Three-dimensional treatment planning and
conformal radiation dose delivery, in Important Advances in Oncology
1995, pp 95-109. Philadelphia, JB Lippincott, 1995.
2. Ling CC, Burman C, Chui CS, et al: Conformal radiation treatment
of prostate cancer using inversely-planned intensity-modulated photon
beams produced with dynamic multileaf collimation. Int J Radiat Oncol
Biol Phys 35:721-730, 1996.
3. Perez CA, Purdy JA, Harms W, et al: Three-dimensional treatment
planning and conformal radiation therapy: Preliminary evaluation.
Radiother Oncol 36:32-43, 1995.
4. Emami B, Purdy JA, Simpson JR, et al: 3-D conformal radiotherapy
in head and neck cancer. The Washington University experience. Front
Radiat Ther Oncol 29:207-220, 1996.
5. Rosenmann J, Sailer SL, Sherouse G, et al: Virtual simulation:
Initial clinical results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 20:843-851,
6. Sherouse GW, Chaney EL: The portable virtual simulation. Int J
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 21:475-482, 1991.
7. Sailer SL, Cheney EL, Rosenman JG, et al: Treatment planning at
the University of North Carolina. Semin Radiat Oncol 2:267-273, 1992.
8. Rosenman JG, Miller EP, Tracton G, et al: Image registration: An
essential part of radiation therapy treatment planning. Int J Radiat
Oncol Biol Phys 40:197-205, 1998.
9. Brizel DM, Light K, Zhou S-M, et al: Conformal 3-D radiation
therapy treatment planning reduces the dose to the open structures
for patients with tumors of the paranasal sinuses. Radiother Oncol
10. Marks LB, Hebert ME, Bentel G, et al: To treat or not to treat
the internal mammary nodes for patients with breast cancer: A
possible compromise. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 29:903-909, 1994.
11. Hardenbergh PH, Bentel GC, Steffey B, et al: Blocking the breast
to spare the heart: 3-D treatment planning in breast conservation
therapy. Proceedings of the 40th Annual ASTRO Meeting. Int J Radiat
Oncol Biol Phys 42(suppl):247, 1998.
12. Das SK, Marks LB: Selection of coplanar or noncoplanar beams
using three-dimensional optimization based on maximum beam separation
and minimized nontarget irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
13. Das S, Whiddon C, Marks L: A quantitative comparison of fixed
conformal beams vs arcs for idealized regular and irregular shaped
lesions. J Radiosurg 3:177-190, 1998.
14. Marks LB, Sherouse GW, Bentel G, et al: Conformal radiation
therapy with fixed shaped virtually simulated noncoplanar radiation
beam bouquets: An alternative to radiosurgery. Int J Radiat Oncol
Biol Phys 33:1209-1219, 1995.
15. Martel MK, Sandler HM, Cornblath WT, et al: Dose-volume
complication analysis for visual pathway structures of patients with
advanced paranasal sinus tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
16. Lyman JT: Complication probabilityas assessed from
dose-volume histograms. Radiat Res 104:513-519, 1985.
17. Lyman JT, Wolbarst AB: Optimization of radiation therapy, III: A
method of assessing complication probability from dose-volume
histograms. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 13:103-109, 1987.
18. Kutcher GJ, Burman C, Brewster L, et al: Histogram reduction
method for calculating complication probabilities for three-dimensional
treatment planning evaluations. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
19. Niemerko A, Goitein M: Calculation of normal tissue complication
probability and dose-volume reduction schemes for tissues with a
critical element architecture. Radiother Oncol 20:166-176, 1991.
20. Emami B, Lyman J, Brown A, et al: Tolerance of normal tissue to
therapeutic irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 21:109-122, 1991.
21. Chen GTY: Dose-volume histograms in treatment planning. Int J
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 14:1319-1320, 1998.
22. Hall EJ: Radiobiology for the Radiobiologist, 4th ed.
Philadelphia, JB Lippincott, 1994.
23. Marks LB: The impact of organ structure on radiation response.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 34:1165-1171, 1996.
24. Skwarchuk MW, Travis EL: Murine strain differences in the volume
effect and incidence of radiation-induced colorectal obstruction. Int
J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 41:889-895, 1998.
25. Marks LB, Munley MT, Poulson JM, et al: Challenges in defining
appropriate endpoints and volumes in studies of
radiation-induced normal tissue injury: Focus on the lung, in
Proceedings from the 5th International Conference on Dose, Time, and
Fractionation in Radiation Oncology, Madison, Wisconsin, September
26. Jamieson TA, Sibley GS, Zhou SM: Pretreatment dosimetric
parameters predict for the risk of proctitis in prostate cancer
patients treated with 3-dimensional radiation therapy. Proceedings of
the 40th Annual ASTRO Meeting. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
27. Maguire PD, Sibley GS, Zhou SM, et al: Clinical and dosimetric
predictors of radiation-induced esophageal toxicity. Int J Radiat
Oncol Biol Phys 45:97-103, 1999.
28. Munley MT, Marks LB, Scarfone C, et al: Multimodality nuclear
medicine imaging in three-dimensional radiation treatment planning
for lung cancer. Lung Cancer 23:105-114, 1999.
29. Marks LB, Spencer DP, Sherouse GW, et al: The role of 3-D
functional lung imaging in radiation treatment planning: The
functional DVH. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 33:65-75, 1995.
30. Marks LB, Spencer DP, Sherouse GW, et al: Quantification of
radiation-induced regional lung injury with perfusion imaging. Int J
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 38:399-409, 1997.
31. Theuws JCM, Kwa SLS, Wagenaar AC, et al: Dose-effect relations
for early local pulmonary injury after irradiation for malignant
lymphoma and breast cancer. Radiother Oncol 48:33-43, 1998.
32. Boersma LJ, Damen EMF, de Boer RW, et al: Dose-effect relations
for local functional and structural changes of the lung after
irradiation for malignant lymphoma. Radiother Oncol 32:201-209, 1994.
33. Garipagaoglu M, Poulson J, Munley MT, et al: The effect of
patient-specific factors on radiation induced regional lung injury.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol 45:331-338, 1999.
34. Marks LB, Munley MP, Bentel GC, et al: Physical and biological
predictors of changes in whole lung function following thoracic
irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 39:563-570, 1997.
35. Bentel GC: Patient Positioning and Immobilization in Radiation
Oncology. New York, McGraw Hill, 1999.