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

Title: SU-F-T-392: Superior Brainstem and Cochlea Sparing with VMAT for Glioblastoma Multiforme

Abstract

Purpose: Volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) can provide similar target coverage and normal tissue sparing as IMRT but with shorter treatment times. At our institution VMAT was adopted for the treatment glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) after a small number of test plans demonstrated its non-inferiority. In this study, we compare actual clinical treatment plans for a larger cohort of patients treated with either VMAT or IMRT. Methods: 90 GBM patients were included in this study, 45 treated with IMRT and 45 with VMAT. All planning target volumes (PTVs) were prescribed a dose of 50 Gy, with a simultaneous integrated boost to 60 Gy. Most IMRT plans used 5 non-coplanar beams, while most VMAT plans used 2 coplanar beams. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher’s exact test or the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney rank sum test. Included in the analysis were patient and treatment characteristics as well as the doses to the target volumes and organs at risk. Results: Treatment times for the VMAT plans were reduced by 5 minutes compared with IMRT. The PTV coverage was similar, with at least 95% covered for all plans, while the median boost PTV dose differed by 0.1 Gy between the IMRT and VMAT cohorts. The doses to themore » brain, optic chiasm, optic nerves and eyes were not significantly different. The mean dose to the brainstem, however, was 9.4 Gy less with VMAT (p<0.001). The dose to the ipsilateral and contralateral cochleae were respectively 19.7 and 9.5 Gy less (p<0.001). Conclusion: Comparison of clinical treatment plans for separate IMRT and VMAT cohorts demonstrates that VMAT can save substantial treatment time while providing similar target coverage and superior sparing of the brainstem and cochleae. To our knowledge this is the first study to demonstrate this benefit of VMAT in the management of GBM.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ;  [1]
  1. Cancer Ctr., Houston, TX (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22648990
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; GLIOMAS; PATIENTS; PLANNING; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Briere, TM, McAleer, MF, Levy, LB, Yang, JN, and Anderson, MD. SU-F-T-392: Superior Brainstem and Cochlea Sparing with VMAT for Glioblastoma Multiforme. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956577.
Briere, TM, McAleer, MF, Levy, LB, Yang, JN, & Anderson, MD. SU-F-T-392: Superior Brainstem and Cochlea Sparing with VMAT for Glioblastoma Multiforme. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956577.
Briere, TM, McAleer, MF, Levy, LB, Yang, JN, and Anderson, MD. Wed . "SU-F-T-392: Superior Brainstem and Cochlea Sparing with VMAT for Glioblastoma Multiforme". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956577.
@article{osti_22648990,
title = {SU-F-T-392: Superior Brainstem and Cochlea Sparing with VMAT for Glioblastoma Multiforme},
author = {Briere, TM and McAleer, MF and Levy, LB and Yang, JN and Anderson, MD},
abstractNote = {Purpose: Volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) can provide similar target coverage and normal tissue sparing as IMRT but with shorter treatment times. At our institution VMAT was adopted for the treatment glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) after a small number of test plans demonstrated its non-inferiority. In this study, we compare actual clinical treatment plans for a larger cohort of patients treated with either VMAT or IMRT. Methods: 90 GBM patients were included in this study, 45 treated with IMRT and 45 with VMAT. All planning target volumes (PTVs) were prescribed a dose of 50 Gy, with a simultaneous integrated boost to 60 Gy. Most IMRT plans used 5 non-coplanar beams, while most VMAT plans used 2 coplanar beams. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher’s exact test or the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney rank sum test. Included in the analysis were patient and treatment characteristics as well as the doses to the target volumes and organs at risk. Results: Treatment times for the VMAT plans were reduced by 5 minutes compared with IMRT. The PTV coverage was similar, with at least 95% covered for all plans, while the median boost PTV dose differed by 0.1 Gy between the IMRT and VMAT cohorts. The doses to the brain, optic chiasm, optic nerves and eyes were not significantly different. The mean dose to the brainstem, however, was 9.4 Gy less with VMAT (p<0.001). The dose to the ipsilateral and contralateral cochleae were respectively 19.7 and 9.5 Gy less (p<0.001). Conclusion: Comparison of clinical treatment plans for separate IMRT and VMAT cohorts demonstrates that VMAT can save substantial treatment time while providing similar target coverage and superior sparing of the brainstem and cochleae. To our knowledge this is the first study to demonstrate this benefit of VMAT in the management of GBM.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956577},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}