Pancreatic cancer planning: Complex conformal vs modulated therapies.
To compare the roles of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric- modulated arc therapy (VMAT) therapy as compared to simple and complex 3-dimensional chemoradiotherpy (3DCRT) planning for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. In all, 12 patients who received postoperative radiotherapy (8) or neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (4) were evaluated retrospectively. Radiotherapy planning was performed for 4 treatment techniques: simple 4-field box, complex 5-field 3DCRT, 5 to 6-field IMRT, and single-arc VMAT. All volumes were approved by a single observer in accordance with Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) Pancreas Contouring Atlas. Plans included tumor/tumor bed and regional lymph nodes to 45Gy; with tumor/tumor bed boosted to 50.4Gy, at least 95% of planning target volume (PTV) received the prescription dose. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) for multiple end points, treatment planning, and delivery time were assessed. Complex 3DCRT, IMRT, and VMAT plans significantly (p < 0.05) decreased mean kidney dose, mean liver dose, liver (V30, V35), stomach (D10%), stomach (V45), mean right kidney dose, and right kidney (V15) as compared with the simple 4-field plans that are most commonly reported in the literature. IMRT plans resulted in decreased mean liver dose, liver (V35), and left kidney (V15, V18, V20). VMAT plans decreased small bowel (D10%, D15%), small bowel (V35, V45), stomach (D10%, D15%), stomach (V35, V45), mean liver dose, liver (V35), left kidney (V15, V18, V20), and right kidney (V18, V20). VMAT plans significantly decreased small bowel (D10%, D15%), left kidney (V20), and stomach (V45) as compared with IMRT plans. Treatment planning and delivery times were most efficient for simple 4-field box and VMAT. Excluding patient setup and imaging, average treatment delivery was within 10minutes for simple and complex 3DCRT, IMRT, and VMAT treatments. This article shows significant improvements in 3D plan performance with complex planning over the more frequently compared 3- or 4-field simple 3D planning techniques. VMAT plans continue to demonstrate potential for the most organ sparing. However, further studies are required to identify if dosimetric benefits associated with inverse optimized planning can be translated into clinical benefits and if these treatment techniques are value-added therapies for this group of patients with cancer.
Chapman KL
，Witek ME
，Chen H
，Showalter TN
，Bar-Ad V
，Harrison AS
... -
《-》
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
... -
《-》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
