ABSTRACT
Objective To investigate the dosimetric comparison of target volumes and organs at risk (OAR) between volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for esophageal cancer by a meta-analysis.Methods A literature search was performed to collect the clinical studies on dosimetric comparison between VMAT and IMRT.The primary endpoints of interest were dosimetric parameters of target volumes and OAR, number of monitor units (MUs), and treatment time (TT).Results A total of 17 studies involving 323 patients were included in this meta-analysis.When the total dose was>50.4 Gy, VMAT showed significantly lower mean dose (Dmean) of gross tumor volume (GTV) and maximum dose (Dmax) of planning target volume (PTV) than IMRT (P=0.009;P=0.039).There were no significant differences in Dmean, V30, and V40 of the heart, Dmax of the spinal cord, and V5, V10, and Dmean of the lung between VMAT and IMRT (P>0.05).VMAT showed significantly lower V15, V20, and V30 of the lung than IMRT (P=0.001;P=0.000;P=0.023).When the single dose was 1.8 Gy and 2.0 Gy, VMAT showed significantly lower TT (reduced by 323.5 s and 193.7 s) and number of MUs (reduced by 275.4 MU and 134.2 MU) than IMRT (P=0.000 and 0.009;P=0.000 and 0.022).Conclusions VMAT can significantly reduce TT, MUs, irradiation dose to the lung, and the risk of radiation pneumonitis, and improve the utilization rate of equipment.Compared with IMRT, VMAT has no significant advantages in protection of the spinal cord and the heart and dosimetric parameters of target volumes except Dmean of PTV and Dmean and Dmax of GTV when the total dose was ≤50.4 Gy.
ABSTRACT
Objective To figure out the optimal parameters of a volumetric modulated arc therapy ( VMAT) plan for cervical and upper esophageal cancer by quality evaluation of VMAT plans with different parameters, and to provide a reference for the design of clinical VMAT treatment plan. Methods Ten patients with cervical esophageal cancer and ten patients with upper esophageal cancer were enrolled as subjects. The Nucletron Oncentra 4. 3 treatment planning system was used to generate plans for Elekta Synergy VMAT accelerator. Six VMAT plans were made with variation in the gantry angle ( 2°, 3°, and 4°), the maximum delivery time (80 s, 110 s, and 150 s), and the collimator angle (0° and 45°). The doses to the planning target volume and organs at risk were analyzed by paired t test. Results For cervical and upper esophageal cancer, the quality of VMAT plans with a collimator angle of 45° was better than those with a collimator angle of 0°(P=0. 003?0. 007). For cervical esophageal cancer, there was no significant difference in quality between VMAT plans with a maximum delivery time of 110 s or 150 s and those with a maximum delivery time of 80 s ( P>0. 05 );for upper esophageal cancer, there was also no significant difference in quality between VMAT plans with three different maximum delivery times ( P>0. 05 ) . For cervical esophageal cancer, the VMAT plans with a gantry angle of 3° had a better quality than those with a gantry angle of 2° or 4°(P=0. 010?0. 048). For upper esophageal cancer, the VMAT plans with a gantry angle of 3° had a better quality than those with a gantry angle of 4° ( P=0. 010?0. 048) . Compared with those with a gantry angle of 2° , the VMAT plans with a gantry angle of 3° had a slightly better dose distribution in the target volume ( P=0. 046 ) , but a slightly higher dose to lung tissue ( V25 and V30 , P=0. 007 and 0. 026) . Conclusions The optimal initial parameters of a VMAT plan for cervical and upper esophageal cancer are a collimator angle of 45°, a maximum delivery time of 80 s, and a gantry angle of 3°.
ABSTRACT
Objective To compare the dosimetric difference between volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and static intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for esophageal carcinoma.Methods Thirty patients were selected in this study,including 5 cases in the cervical,5 the lower thorax,10 the upper thorax and 10 the middle thorax.VMAT plans with a single arc and IMRT plans with five fields designed for each patients.Planning target volume (PTV) were prescribed to 60 Gy in 30 fractions.Delta 4 was used to verifie the dosimetric of treatment plans.Using paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-test to compare the dose distribution on planning and organs at risk (OAR).The monitor units and treatment time were also evaluated to measure the treatment efficiency.Results All the VMAT and IMRT plans can satisfy the clinical dosimetry requirements.VMAT had better conformal index for PTV than IMRT (P =0.008).VMAT was better than IMRT by reducing the Dmax of spinal cord (P =0.032),while the V30,V40 and Dmean of heart were significantly higher (P =0.041,0.012,0.002).For cervicals,the V5,V10,V15 and mean dose of lung were significant higher in VMAT than those in IMRT (P =0.002-O.002,0.002).For uppers,the values of heart V30 and Dmean were significantly larger in VMAT than IMRT (P =0.030,0.026).However,the Dmax of spinal cord in VMAT was lower than IMRT (P =0.006).For middles,VMAT reduced V10,V15,V20 of lung (P =0.015,0.028,0.041).There were no significant differences between VMAT and IMRT in the lowers (P =0.262-0.998).The 3 mm/3％ γ pass rate was 92.75％ for VMAT and 92.98％ for IMRT (P =0.826).The average MU of VMAT (460.66 MU) was reduced by 11.84％ compared with IMRT (522.55 MU) (P=0.001).The delivery time of VMAT (139.6s) compared with IMRT (298.73 s) was reduced by an average of 53.27％ (P =0.000).Conclusions Compared with IMRT,VMAT improved the OARs dose sparing and the target CI with similar dose distribution to the target.VMAT required fewer MU,shorten the treatment time significantly.The implementation of Synergy is stable and reliable.