Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (RapidArc) vs. conventional fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy for {sup 18}F-FDG-PET-guided dose escalation in oropharyngeal cancer: A planning study

Journal Article · Mon Apr 01 04:00:00 EDT 2013 · Medical Dosimetry

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2012.05.002· OSTI ID:22262785

Teoh, May ^[1]; Beveridge, Sabeena ^[2]; Wood, Katie; Whitaker, Stephen ^[1]; Adams, Elizabeth; Rickard, Donna; Jordan, Tom; Nisbet, Andrew ^[2]; Clark, Catharine H. ^[2]

---

1. Department of Oncology, St. Luke's Cancer Centre, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, Surrey (United Kingdom)
2. Department of Medical Physics, St. Luke's Cancer Centre, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, Surrey (United Kingdom)

Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography ({sup 18}F-FDG-PET)–guided focal dose escalation in oropharyngeal cancer may potentially improve local control. We evaluated the feasibility of this approach using volumetric-modulated arc therapy (RapidArc) and compared these plans with fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) focal dose escalation plans. Materials and methods: An initial study of 20 patients compared RapidArc with fixed-field IMRT using standard dose prescriptions. From this cohort, 10 were included in a dose escalation planning study. Dose escalation was applied to {sup 18}F-FDG-PET–positive regions in the primary tumor at dose levels of 5% (DL1), 10% (DL2), and 15% (DL3) above standard radical dose (65 Gy in 30 fractions). Fixed-field IMRT and double-arc RapidArc plans were generated for each dataset. Dose-volume histograms were used for plan evaluation and comparison. The Paddick conformity index (CI{sub Paddick}) and monitor units (MU) for each plan were recorded and compared. Both IMRT and RapidArc produced clinically acceptable plans and achieved planning objectives for target volumes. Dose conformity was significantly better in the RapidArc plans, with lower CI{sub Paddick} scores in both primary (PTV1) and elective (PTV2) planning target volumes (largest difference in PTV1 at DL3; 0.81 ± 0.03 [RapidArc] vs. 0.77 ± 0.07 [IMRT], p = 0.04). Maximum dose constraints for spinal cord and brainstem were not exceeded in both RapidArc and IMRT plans, but mean doses were higher with RapidArc (by 2.7 ± 1 Gy for spinal cord and 1.9 ± 1 Gy for brainstem). Contralateral parotid mean dose was lower with RapidArc, which was statistically significant at DL1 (29.0 vs. 29.9 Gy, p = 0.01) and DL2 (29.3 vs. 30.3 Gy, p = 0.03). MU were reduced by 39.8–49.2% with RapidArc (largest difference at DL3, 641 ± 94 vs. 1261 ± 118, p < 0.01). {sup 18}F-FDG-PET–guided focal dose escalation in oropharyngeal cancer is feasible with RapidArc. Compared with conventional fixed-field IMRT, RapidArc can achieve better dose conformity, improve contralateral parotid sparing, and uses fewer MU.

• OSTI ID: 22262785
• Journal Information: Medical Dosimetry, Journal Name: Medical Dosimetry Journal Issue: 1 Vol. 38; ISSN 0958-3947
• Country of Publication: United States
• Language: English

Related Subjects

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY
EXTERNAL BEAM RADIATION THERAPY
FLUORINE 18
NEOPLASMS
PLANNING
POSITRON COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY
RADIATION DOSES