Dosimetric Comparison between Single and Dual Arc-Volumetric Modulated Arc Radiotherapy and Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Using a Simultaneous Integrated Boost Technique.

Backround: Plan quality and performance of dual arc (DA) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) , single arc (SA) VMAT and nine field (9F) intensity modulated radiotherapy were compared using a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique. Methods: Twelve patients treated in Elekta Synergy Platform (mlci2) by 9F-IMRT were replanned with SA/DA-VMAT using a CMS Monaco Treatment Planning System (TPS) with Monte Carlo simulation. Target delineation was conducted as per Radiation Therapy Oncology Protocols (RTOG0225 and 0615). A 70Gy dose prescribed to PTV70 and 61Gy to PTV61 in 33 fractions was applied for the SIB technique. The conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) for targets and the mean dose and maximum dose for OAR’s, treatment delivery time (min), monitor units (MUs) per fraction, normal tissue integral dose and patient specific quality assurance were analysed. Results: Acceptable target coverage was achieved for PTV70 and PTV61 with all the planning techniques. No significant differences were observed except for D98 (PTV61), CI(PTV70) and HI(PTV61). Maximum dose (Dmax) to the spinal cord was lower in DA-VMAT than 9F-IMRT (p=0.002) and SA-VMAT (p=0.001). D50 (%) of parotid glands was better controlled by 9F-IMRT (p=0.001) and DA-VMAT (p=0.001) than SA-VMAT. A lower mean dose to the larynx was achieved with 9F-IMRT (P=0.001) and DA-VMAT (p=0.001) than with SA-VMAT. DA-VMAT achieved higher CI of PTV70 (P= 0.005) than SA-VMAT. For PTV61, DA-VMAT (P=0.001) and 9F-IMRT (P=0.001) achieved better HI than SA-VMAT. The average treatment delivery times were 7.67mins, 3.35 mins, 4.65 mins for 9F- IMRT, SA-VMAT and DA-VMAT, respectively. No significant difference were observed in MU/fr (p=0.9) and NTID (P=0.90) and the patient quality assurance pass rates were >95% (gamma analysis Ґ3mm, 3%). Conclusion: DA-VMAT showed better conformity over target dose and spared the OARs better or equal to IMRT. SA-VMAT could not spare the OARs well. DA-VMAT offered shorter delivery time than IMRT without compromising the plan quality.

Radhakrishnan S ，Chandrasekaran A ，Sarma Y ，Balakrishnan S ，Nandigam J ... -  《-》

Dual arc volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) of nasopharyngeal carcinomas: a simultaneous integrated boost treatment plan comparison with intensity-modulated radiotherapies and single arc VMAT.

To compare the performance of volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) by dual arc with fixed beam intensity-modulated radiotherapies (IMRTs) and single arc VMAT on nasopharyngeal carcinomas (NPC). Twenty NPC cases were re-planned using the planning system of the Pinnacle(3®)SmartArc (SA) module to compare the performance of the following four techniques: seven-field (7F) and 18-field (18F) fixed beam IMRT, and single (SA(1)) and dual arc VMAT (SA(2)). The plan was delivered on an Elekta Synergy™ Linac equipped with an 80-leaf 1cm multileaf collimator. Three dose levels of planning target volumes (PTVs) with 70/59.4/54.0Gy in 33 fractions were prescribed and delivered as a simultaneous integrated boost. The conformity index and homogeneity index of the PTVs, the comprehensive quality index (CQI), the normal tissue complication probability for the organs at risk (OARs), and the planning time, delivery efficiency and accuracy were analysed. A significantly inferior conformity index at the three dose levels of PTV and homogeneity index of PTV(70) were observed in SA(1) compared with the other techniques. Comparable conformity index and homogeneity index of the PTV were observed among 7F/18F IMRT and SA(2). Based on the CQI of the 11 OARs, the most efficient dose reduction was observed in 18F IMRT followed in order by SA(2), 7F IMRT and SA(1). The planning time was on average 13.2/24.9/40.1/42.8min for 7F/18F IMRT/SA(1)/SA(2), respectively. With regards to the delivery efficiency compared with 7F IMRT, a 51 and 41% reduction in delivery time was achieved by SA(1) and SA(2), respectively. All techniques presented a high quality assurance pass rate (>98%) of the Γ(3mm,3%) criterion. In NPC cases, SA(2) gave superior results in terms of PTV coverage and OAR sparing compared with SA(1) and approached the performance achieved by 18F IMRT, but without sacrificing the delivery efficiency.

Lee TF ，Ting HM ，Chao PJ ，Fang FM ... -  《-》

Comparative analysis of SmartArc-based dual arc volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Lee TF ，Chao PJ ，Ting HM ，Lo SH ，Wang YW ，Tuan CC ，Fang FM ，Su TJ ... -  《Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics》

Comparison of whole-field simultaneous integrated boost VMAT and IMRT in the treatment of nasopharyngeal cancer.

To study the feasibility of using volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to deliver whole-field simultaneous integrated boost (WF-SIB) to treat patients with nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC). WF-SIB intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans, one-arc WF-SIB VMAT plans, and two-arc WF-SIB VMAT plans were generated with identical objective functions for 8 patients with NPC of various stages. Isodose distributions and dose-volume histograms were evaluated. Dosimetric and biological quality indices of clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk (OARs) were calculated to study the optimization capability of these 3 modalities in the treatment of patients with NPC. The optimization time, delivery time, required monitor units (MUs), and delivery accuracy were also compared to investigate the feasibility of these 3 modalities. There was no significant difference (p = 0.92) in target coverage (TC) between WF-SIB IMRT (99.00 ± 0.79) and two-arc WF-SIB VMAT (97.98 ± 1.29). However, both had higher TC than one-arc VMAT plans (89.92 ± 6.32, p < 0.01). IMRT demonstrated the best protection of the spinal cord, whereas two-arc VMAT showed the minimum Dmax to OARs. No other significant differences were observed among these 3 modalities on CTV coverage and OAR sparing. The delivery and MU efficiency of one-arc and two-arc WF-SIB VMAT were greatly improved compared with WF-SIB IMRT. The optimization time of one-arc and two-arc WF-SIB VMAT plans were 5 and 10 times greater than that of WF-SIB IMRT, respectively. The delivery accuracy of WF-SIB VMAT was not affected by the increased freedom. For patients with NPC, one-arc WF-SIB VMAT might not be able to achieve sufficient TC, whereas two-arc WF-SIB VMAT was able to achieve reasonable TC. No significant advantage on OAR protection was demonstrated by VMAT compared with IMRT. WF-SIB VMAT has significantly shorter delivery times, but WF-SIB IMRT may still be the first treatment choice for patients with NPC.

Jin X ，Yi J ，Zhou Y ，Yan H ，Han C ，Xie C ... -  《-》

Volumetric modulated arc therapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a dosimetric comparison with TomoTherapy and step-and-shoot IMRT.

Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), a novel technique, employs a linear accelerator to conduct dynamic modulation rotation radiotherapy. The goal of this study was to compare VMAT with helical tomotherapy (HT) and step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients with regard to the sparing effect on organs at risk (OARs), dosimetric quality, and efficiency of delivery. Twenty patients with NPC treated by HT were re-planned by VMAT (two arcs) and IMRT (7-9 fields) for dosimetric comparison. The target area received three dose levels (70, 60, and 54 Gy) in 33 fractions using simultaneous integrated boosts technique. The Philips Pinnacle Planning System 9.0 was adopted to design VMAT, using SmartArc as the planning algorithm. For a fair comparison, the planning target volume (PTV) coverage of the 3 plans was normalized to the same level. Dosimetric comparisons between VMAT, HT, and IMRT plans were analyzed to evaluate (1) coverage, homogeneity, and conformity of PTV, (2) sparing of OARs, (3) delivery time, and (4) monitor units (MUs). The VMAT, HT, and IMRT plans had similar PTV coverage with an average of 96%. There was no significant difference between VMAT and HT in homogeneity, while the homogeneity indices of VMAT (1.06) and HT (1.06) were better than IMRT plans (1.07, p<0.05). HT plans provided a better conformity index (1.17) than VMAT (1.28, p=0.01) and IMRT (1.36, p=0.02). When compared with IMRT, VMAT and HT had a better sparing effect on brain stem and spinal cord (p<0.05). The effect of parotid sparing was similar between VMAT (mean=26.3 Gy) and HT (mean=27.5 Gy), but better than IMRT (mean=31.3 Gy, p<0.01). The delivery time per fraction for VMAT (5.7 min) were much lower than for HT (9.5 min, p<0.01) and IMRT (9.2 min, p<0.01). Our results indicate that VMAT provides better sparing of normal tissue, homogeneity, and conformity than IMRT, and shorter delivery time than HT.

Lu SH ，Cheng JC ，Kuo SH ，Lee JJ ，Chen LH ，Wu JK ，Chen YH ，Chen WY ，Wen SY ，Chong FC ，Wu CJ ，Wang CW ... -  《-》