Dosimetric comparison of TomoDirect, helical tomotherapy, VMAT, and ff-IMRT for upper thoracic esophageal carcinoma.
The new TomoDirect (TD) modality offers a nonrotational option with discrete beam angles. We aim to compare dosimetric parameters of TD, helical tomotherapy (HT), volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (ff-IMRT) for upper thoracic esophageal carcinoma (EC).
Twenty patients with cT2-4N0-1M0 upper thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) were enrolled. Four plans were generated using the same dose objectives for each patient: TD, HT, VMAT with a single arc, and ff-IMRT with 5 fields (5F). The prescribed doses were used to deliver 50.4 Gy/28F to the planning target volume (PTV50.4) and then provided a 9 Gy/5F boost to PTV59.4. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) statistics, dose uniformity, and dose homogeneity were analyzed to compare treatment plans.
For PTV59.4, the D2, D98, Dmean, and V100% values in HT were significantly lower than other plans (all p < 0.05), and those in TD were significantly lower than VMAT and ff-IMRT (all p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the D2 and Dmean values between VMAT and ff-IMRT techniques (p > 0.05). The homogeneity index (HI) differed significantly for the 4 techniques of TD, HT, VMAT, and ff-IMRT (0.03 ± 0.01, 0.02 ± 0.01, 0.06 ± 0.02, and 0.05 ± 0.01, respectively; p < 0.001). The HI for TD was similar to HT (p = 0.166), and had statistically significant improvement compared to VMAT (p < 0.001) and ff-IMRT (p = 0.003). In comparison with the 4 conformity indices (CIs), there was no significant difference (p > 0.05). For PTV50.4, the D2 and Dmean values in HT were significantly lower than other plans (all p < 0.05), and those in TD were significantly lower than VMAT and ff-IMRT (all p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the D2 and Dmean values between VMAT and ff-IMRT techniques (p > 0.05). No D98 and V100% parameters differed significantly among the 4 treatment types (p > 0.05). HT plans were provided for statistically significant improvement in HI (0.03 ± 0.01) compared to TD plans (0.05 ± 0.01, p = 0.003), VMAT (0.08 ± 0.03, p < 0.001), ff-IMRT (0.08 ± 0.01, p < 0.001). The HI revealed that TD was superior to VMAT and ff-IMRT (p < 0.05). The CI differed significantly for the 4 techniques of TD, HT, VMAT, and ff-IMRT (0.59 ± 0.10, 0.69 ± 0.11, 0.64 ± 0.09, and 0.64 ± 0.11, respectively; p = 0.035). The best CI was yielded by HT. We found no significant difference for the V5, V10, V15, V30, and the mean lung dose (MLD) among the 4 techniques (all p > 0.05). However, the V20 differed significantly among TD, HT, VMAT, and ff-IMRT (21.50 ± 7.20%, 19.50 ± 5.55%, 17.65 ± 5.45%, and 16.35 ± 5.70%, respectively; p = 0.047). Average V20 for the lungs was significantly improved by the TD plans compared to VMAT (p = 0.047), and ff-IMRT (p = 0.008). The V5 value of the lung in TD was 49.30 ± 13.01%, lower than other plans, but there was no significant difference (p > 0.05). The D1 of the spinal cord showed no significant difference among the 4 techniques (p = 0.056).
All techniques are able to provide a homogeneous and highly conformal dose distribution. The TD technique is a good option for treating upper thoracic EC involvement. It could achieve optimal low dose to the lungs and spinal cord with acceptable PTV coverage. HT is a good option as it could achieve quality dose conformality and uniformity, while TD generated superior conformality.
Zhang Y
，Wang H
，Huang X
，Zhang Q
，Ren R
，Sun R
，Zheng Z
，Dong S
，Zheng A
... -
《-》
Study for reducing lung dose of upper thoracic esophageal cancer radiotherapy by auto-planning: volumetric-modulated arc therapy vs intensity-modulated radiation therapy.
This study aimed to investigate the dosimetric differences and lung sparing between volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in the treatment of upper thoracic esophageal cancer with T3N0M0 for preoperative radiotherapy by auto-planning (AP). Sixteen patient cases diagnosed with upper thoracic esophageal cancer T3N0M0 for preoperative radiotherapy were retrospectively studied, and 3 plans were generated for each patient: full arc VMAT AP plan with double arcs, partial arc VMAT AP plan with 6 partial arcs, and conventional IMRT AP plan. A simultaneous integrated boost with 2 levels was planned in all patients. Target coverage, organ at risk sparing, treatment parameters including monitor units and treatment time (TT) were evaluated. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to check for significant differences (p < 0.05) between datasets. VMAT plans (pVMAT and fVMAT) significantly reduced total lung volume treated above 20 Gy (V20), 25 Gy (V25), 30 Gy (V30), 35 Gy (V35), 40 Gy (V40), and without increasing the value of V10, V13, and V15. For V5 of total lung value, pVMAT was similar to aIMRT, and it was better than fVMAT. Both pVMAT and fVMAT improved the target dose coverage and significantly decreased maximum dose for the spinal cord, monitor unit, and TT. No significant difference was observed with respect to V10 and V15 of body. VMAT AP plan was a good option for treating upper thoracic esophageal cancer with T3N0M0, especially partial arc VMAT AP plan. It had the potential to effectively reduce lung dose in a shorter TT and with superior target coverage and dose homogeneity.
Chen H
，Wang H
，Gu H
，Shao Y
，Cai X
，Fu X
，Xu Z
... -
《-》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
