ABSTRACT
For more than a decade, the majority of radiation oncology centres have been delivering intensity-modulated radiotherapy (then volumetric-modulated arctherapy) with 6 MV photons as their standard of care. This « dogma ¼ had been supported by the usual absence of dosimetric advantages with high-energy photons (15 to 18 MV or more), at least for the planning target volume and the dose received by the adjacent organs at risk, and by the neutron component as soon as the photon energy exceeds 10 MV. Recent data could question such a dogma. First, in 2019, one cannot avoid taking into account the integral dose, delivered outside the treated volume. Actually, most available data show that integral dose is higher with low energy photons (as 6 MV) than with higher energies. Moreover, recent studies have shown that the neutron component at high energies may have been overestimated in the past; in fact, the neutron dose appears to be lower, and sometimes much lower, than the dose we accept for imaging. Finally, a few cohort studies did not show any increase in second cancers incidence after high-energy photon radiotherapy. In such a context, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) TG 158 document, released a few months ago, clearly states that there is a trade-off between high- and low-energy treatments. High-energy therapy is associated with neutron production, while low-energy therapy results in higher stray photon dose. According to the AAPM, « the optimal energy is likely an intermediate such as 10 MV ¼.
