Dosimetric advantages of generalised equivalent uniform dose-based optimisation on dose-volume objectives in intensity-modulated radiotherapy planning for bilateral breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: We compared and evaluated the differences between two models for treating bilateral breast cancer (BBC): (i) dose-volume-based intensity-modulated radiation treatment (DV plan), and (ii) dose-volume-based intensity-modulated radiotherapy with generalised equivalent uniform dose-based optimisation (DV-gEUD plan). METHODS: The quality and performance of the DV plan and DV-gEUD plan using the Pinnacle(3) system (Philips, Fitchburg, WI) were evaluated and compared in 10 patients with stage T2-T4 BBC. The plans were delivered on a Varian 21EX linear accelerator (Varian Medical Systems, Milpitas, CA) equipped with a Millennium 120 leaf multileaf collimator (Varian Medical Systems). The parameters analysed included the conformity index, homogeneity index, tumour control probability of the planning target volume (PTV), the volumes V(20 Gy) and V(30 Gy) of the organs at risk (OAR, including the heart and lungs), mean dose and the normal tissue complication probability. RESULTS: Both plans met the requirements for the coverage of PTV with similar conformity and homogeneity indices. However, the DV-gEUD plan had the advantage of dose sparing for OAR: the mean doses of the heart and lungs, lung V(20) (Gy), and heart V(30) (Gy) in the DV-gEUD plan were lower than those in the DV plan (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A better result can be obtained by starting with a DV-generated plan and then improving it by adding gEUD-based improvements to reduce the number of iterations and to improve the optimum dose distribution. Advances to knowledge The DV-gEUD plan provided superior dosimetric results for treating BBC in terms of PTV coverage and OAR sparing than the DV plan, without sacrificing the homogeneity of dose distribution in the PTV.

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.

AIMS: 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). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.

Randomized trial of neoadjuvant cisplatin, vincristine, bleomycin, and radical hysterectomy versus radiation therapy for bulky stage IB and IIA cervical cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by radical hysterectomy with that of radiotherapy (R/T) for bulky early-stage cervical cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with previously untreated bulky (primary tumor >/= 4 cm) stage IB or IIA non-small-cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix were randomly assigned to receive either cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) and vincristine 1 mg/m(2) for 1 day and bleomycin 25 mg/m(2) for 3 days for three cycles followed by radical hysterectomy (NAC arm) or receive primary pelvic radiotherapy only (R/T arm). The ratio of patient allocation was 6:4 for the NAC and R/T arms. Women with enlarged para-aortic lymph nodes on image study were ineligible unless results of cytologic or histologic studies were negative. RESULTS: Of the 124 eligible patients, 68 in the NAC arm and 52 in the R/T arm could be evaluated. The median duration of follow-up was 39 months. Thirty-one percent of patients in the NAC arm and 27% in the R/T arm had relapse or persistent diseases after treatment, and 21% in each group died of disease. Estimated cumulative survival rates at 2 years were 81% for the NAC arm and 84% for the R/T arm; the 5-year rates were 70% and 61%, respectively. There were no significant differences in disease-free survival and overall survival. CONCLUSION: NAC followed by radical hysterectomy and primary R/T showed similar efficacy for bulky stage IB or IIA cervical cancer. Further study to identify patient subgroups better suited for either treatment modality and to evaluate the concurrent use of cisplatin and radiation without routine hysterectomy is necessary.