skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Dosimetric comparison between step-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy for upper thoracic and cervical esophageal carcinoma

Abstract

To compare and analyze the dosimetric characteristics of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) vs step-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (sIMRT) for upper thoracic and cervical esophageal carcinoma. Single-arc VMAT (VMAT1), dual-arc VMAT (VMAT2), and 7-field sIMRT plans were designed for 30 patients with upper thoracic or cervical esophageal carcinoma. Planning target volume (PTV) was prescribed to 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions, and PTV1 was prescribed to 60 Gy in 28 fractions. The parameters evaluated included dose homogeneity and conformality, dose to organs at risk (OARs), and delivery efficiency. (1) In comparison to sIMRT, VMAT provided a systematic improvement in PTV1 coverage. The homogeneity index of VMAT1 was better than that of VMAT2. There were no significant differences among sIMRT, VMAT1, and VMAT2 in PTV coverage. (2) VMAT1 and VMAT2 reduced the maximum dose of spinal cord as compared with sIMRT (p < 0.05). The rest dose-volume characteristics of OARs were similar. (3) Monitor units of VMAT2 and VMAT1 were more than sIMRT. However, the treatment time of VMAT1, VMAT2, and sIMRT was (2.0 ± 0.2), (2.8 ± 0.3), and (9.8 ± 0.8) minutes, respectively. VMAT1 was the fastest, and the difference was statistically significant. In the treatment of upper thoracic andmore » cervical esophageal carcinoma by the AXESSE linac, compared with 7-field sIMRT, VMAT showed better PTV1 coverage and superior spinal cord sparing. Single-arc VMAT had similar target volume coverage and the sparing of OAR to dual-arc VMAT, with shortest treatment time and highest treatment efficiency in the 3 kinds of plans.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ;
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22577873
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Dosimetry; Journal Volume: 41; Journal Issue: 2; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2016 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; 62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; CARCINOMAS; DOSIMETRY; ESOPHAGUS; HEALTH HAZARDS; PATIENTS; PLANNING; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY; SPINAL CORD

Citation Formats

Gao, Min, Li, Qilin, Ning, Zhonghua, Gu, Wendong, Huang, Jin, Mu, Jinming, and Pei, Honglei, E-mail: hongleipei@126.com. Dosimetric comparison between step-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy for upper thoracic and cervical esophageal carcinoma. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2015.10.007.
Gao, Min, Li, Qilin, Ning, Zhonghua, Gu, Wendong, Huang, Jin, Mu, Jinming, & Pei, Honglei, E-mail: hongleipei@126.com. Dosimetric comparison between step-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy for upper thoracic and cervical esophageal carcinoma. United States. doi:10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2015.10.007.
Gao, Min, Li, Qilin, Ning, Zhonghua, Gu, Wendong, Huang, Jin, Mu, Jinming, and Pei, Honglei, E-mail: hongleipei@126.com. Fri . "Dosimetric comparison between step-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy for upper thoracic and cervical esophageal carcinoma". United States. doi:10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2015.10.007.
@article{osti_22577873,
title = {Dosimetric comparison between step-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy for upper thoracic and cervical esophageal carcinoma},
author = {Gao, Min and Li, Qilin and Ning, Zhonghua and Gu, Wendong and Huang, Jin and Mu, Jinming and Pei, Honglei, E-mail: hongleipei@126.com},
abstractNote = {To compare and analyze the dosimetric characteristics of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) vs step-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (sIMRT) for upper thoracic and cervical esophageal carcinoma. Single-arc VMAT (VMAT1), dual-arc VMAT (VMAT2), and 7-field sIMRT plans were designed for 30 patients with upper thoracic or cervical esophageal carcinoma. Planning target volume (PTV) was prescribed to 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions, and PTV1 was prescribed to 60 Gy in 28 fractions. The parameters evaluated included dose homogeneity and conformality, dose to organs at risk (OARs), and delivery efficiency. (1) In comparison to sIMRT, VMAT provided a systematic improvement in PTV1 coverage. The homogeneity index of VMAT1 was better than that of VMAT2. There were no significant differences among sIMRT, VMAT1, and VMAT2 in PTV coverage. (2) VMAT1 and VMAT2 reduced the maximum dose of spinal cord as compared with sIMRT (p < 0.05). The rest dose-volume characteristics of OARs were similar. (3) Monitor units of VMAT2 and VMAT1 were more than sIMRT. However, the treatment time of VMAT1, VMAT2, and sIMRT was (2.0 ± 0.2), (2.8 ± 0.3), and (9.8 ± 0.8) minutes, respectively. VMAT1 was the fastest, and the difference was statistically significant. In the treatment of upper thoracic and cervical esophageal carcinoma by the AXESSE linac, compared with 7-field sIMRT, VMAT showed better PTV1 coverage and superior spinal cord sparing. Single-arc VMAT had similar target volume coverage and the sparing of OAR to dual-arc VMAT, with shortest treatment time and highest treatment efficiency in the 3 kinds of plans.},
doi = {10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2015.10.007},
journal = {Medical Dosimetry},
number = 2,
volume = 41,
place = {United States},
year = {Fri Jul 01 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Fri Jul 01 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}
  • Purpose: To compare the plan quality and performance of Simultaneous Integrated Boost (SIB) Treatment plan between Seven field (7F) and Nine field(9F) Intensity Modulated Radiotherapies and Single Arc (SA) and Dual Arc (DA) Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy( VMAT). Methods: Retrospective planning study of 16 patients treated in Elekta Synergy Platform (mlci2) by 9F-IMRT were replanned with 7F-IMRT, Single Arc VMAT and Dual Arc VMAT using CMS, Monaco Treatment Planning System (TPS) with Monte Carlo simulation. Target delineation done as per Radiation Therapy Oncology Protocols (RTOG 0225&0615). Dose Prescribed as 70Gy to Planning Target Volumes (PTV70) and 61Gy to PTV61 inmore » 33 fraction as a SIB technique. Conformity Index(CI), Homogeneity Index(HI) were used as analysis parameter for Target Volumes as well as Mean dose and Max dose for Organ at Risk(OAR,s).Treatment Delivery Time(min), Monitor unit per fraction (MU/fraction), Patient specific quality assurance were also analysed. Results: A Poor dose coverage and Conformity index (CI) was observed in PTV70 by 7F-IMRT among other techniques. SA-VMAT achieved poor dose coverage in PTV61. No statistical significance difference observed in OAR,s except Spinal cord (P= 0.03) and Right optic nerve (P=0.03). DA-VMAT achieved superior target coverage, higher CI (P =0.02) and Better HI (P=0.03) for PTV70 other techniques (7F-IMRT/9F-IMRT/SA-VMAT). A better dose spare for Parotid glands and spinal cord were seen in DA-VMAT. The average treatment delivery time were 5.82mins, 6.72mins, 3.24mins, 4.3mins for 7F-IMRT, 9F-IMRT, SA-VMAT and DA-VMAT respectively. Significance difference Observed in MU/fr (P <0.001) and Patient quality assurance pass rate were >95% (Gamma analysis (Γ3mm, 3%). Conclusion: DA-VAMT showed better target dose coverage and achieved better or equal performance in sparing OARs among other techniques. SA-VMAT offered least Treatment Time than other techniques but achieved poor target coverage. DA-VMAT offered shorter delivery time than 7F-IMRT and 9F-IMRT without compromising the plan quality.« less
  • Purpose: To compare volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) technique with fixed-gantry intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) technique for locally recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Methods: CT datasets of eleven nasopharyngeal-carcinoma patients were included. Dual-arc VMAT and seven-field IMRT plans were created for each case, and were then compared in terms of conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI) of the planning target volume (PTV), organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing, monitor unit (MU) and delivery time. Results: The D98% (near-minimal dose) of PTV in the VMAT plans was slightly lower than that of the IMRT plans (P < 0.05), while the CI was higher than that of themore » IMRT plans (P < 0.05). No significant difference was found in the HI between the two plans (P > 0.05). Compared with the IMRT plans, the VMAT plans demonstrated lower Dmean (mean dose) of the bilateral temporal lobes and the whole surrounding normal tissue (P < 0.05), but slightly higher Dmean of brainstem (P < 0.05). In terms of the other OARs, no significant differences were found (P > 0.05). The MUs of the VMAT plans (672 ± 112) was significantly lower than that of the IMRT plans (917 ± 206), by 25 ± 13% (P < 0.05). The average delivery time of the VMAT plans (2.3 ± 0.1 min) was less than that of the IMRT plans (5.1 ± 0.4 min), by 54 ± 3%. Conclusion: For locally recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma, the VMAT technique could achieve equivalent or superior dose distribution of the target and better protect the bilateral temporal lobes, compared with the IMRT technique. Moreover, it could reduce the MU and delivery time effectively.« less
  • Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma with large nerve perineural (LNPN) infiltration of the base of skull is a radiotherapeutic challenge given the complex target volumes to nearby organs at risk (OAR). A comparative planning study was undertaken to evaluate dosimetric differences between volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) versus intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in the treatment of LNPN. Five consecutive patients previously treated with IMRT for LNPN were selected. VMAT plans were generated for each case using the same planning target volumes (PTV), dose prescriptions and OAR constraints as IMRT. Comparative parameters used to assess target volume coverage, conformity and homogeneitymore » included V95 of the PTV (volume encompassed by the 95% isodose), conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI). In addition, OAR maximum point doses, V20, V30, non-target tissue (NTT) point max doses, NTT volume above reference dose, monitor units (MU) were compared. IMRT and VMAT plans generated were comparable for CI (P = 0.12) and HI (P = 0.89). VMAT plans achieved better V95 (P = < 0.001) and reduced V20 and V30 by 652 cubic centimetres (cc) (28.5%) and 425.7 cc (29.1%), respectively. VMAT increased MU delivered by 18% without a corresponding increase in NTT dose. Compared with IMRT plans for LNPN, VMAT achieved comparable HI and CI.« less
  • Introduction: For patients with cervical cancer, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) improves target coverage and allows dose escalation while reducing the radiation dose to organs at risk (OARs). In this study, we compared dosimetric parameters among 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), “step-and-shoot” IMRT, and volumetric intensity-modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) in a series of patients with cervical cancer receiving definitive radiotherapy. Computed tomography (CT) scans of 10 patients with histologically proven cervical cancer treated with definitive radiation therapy (RT) from December 2008 to March 2010 at our department were selected for this study. The gross tumor volume (GTV) and clinical target volume (CTV)more » were delineated following the guidelines of the Gyn IMRT consortium that included cervix, uterus, parametrial tissues, and the pelvic nodes including presacral. The median age was 57 years (range: 30 to 85 years). All 10 patients had squamous cell carcinoma with Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IB-IIIB. All patients were treated by VMAT. OAR doses were significantly reduced for plans with intensity-modulated technique compared with 3D-CRT except for the dose to the vagina. Between the 2 intensity-modulated techniques, significant difference was observed for the mean dose to the small intestine, to the benefit of VMAT (p < 0.001). There was no improvement in terms of OARs sparing for VMAT although there was a tendency for a slightly decreased average dose to the rectum: − 0.65 Gy but not significant (p = 0.07). The intensity modulation techniques have many advantages in terms of quality indexes, and particularly OAR sparing, compared with 3D-CRT. Following the ongoing technologic developments in modern radiotherapy, it is essential to evaluate the intensity-modulated techniques on prospective studies of a larger scale.« less
  • To evaluate the lung sparing in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for patients with upper thoracic esophageal tumors extending inferiorly to the thorax by different beam arrangement. Overall, 15 patient cases with cancer of upper thoracic esophagus were selected for a retrospective treatment-planning study. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans using 4, 5, and 7 beams (4B, 5B, and 7B) were developed for each patient by direct machine parameter optimization (DMPO). All plans were evaluated with respect to dose volumes to irradiated targets and normal structures, with statistical comparisons made between 4B with 5B and 7B intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans. Differences among plansmore » were evaluated using a two-tailed Friedman test at a statistical significance of p < 0.05. The maximum dose, average dose, and the conformity index (CI) of planning target volume 1 (PTV1) were similar for 3 plans for each case. No significant difference of coverage for planning target volume 1 and maximum dose for spinal cords were observed among 3 plans in present study (p > 0.05). The average V{sub 5}, V{sub 13}, V{sub 20}, mean lung dose, and generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) for the total lung were significantly lower in 4B-plans than those data in 5B-plans and 7B-plans (p < 0.01). Although the average V{sub 30} for the total lung were significantly higher in 4B-plans than those in 5B-plans and 7B-plans (p < 0.05). In addition, when comparing with the 4B-plans, the conformity/heterogeneity index of the 5B- and 7B-plans were significantly superior (p < 0.05). The 4B-intensity-modulated radiation therapy plan has advantage to address the specialized problem of lung sparing to low- and intermediate-dose exposure in the thorax when dealing with relative long tumors extended inferiorly to the thoracic esophagus for upper esophageal carcinoma with the cost for less conformity. Studies are needed to compare the superiority of volumetric modulated arc therapy with intensity-modulated radiation therapy technique.« less