scholarly journals Left breast irradiation with tangential intensity modulated radiotherapy (t-IMRT) versus tangential volumetric modulated arc therapy (t-VMAT): trade-offs between secondary cancer induction risk and optimal target coverage

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Karpf ◽  
Mazen Sakka ◽  
Martin Metzger ◽  
Gerhard G. Grabenbauer
Author(s):  
Karthikeyan Kalyanasundaram ◽  
Subramani Vellaiyan

Abstract Purpose: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the impact of changes in breathing pattern inside the breath-hold window (BHW) during deep inspiration breath hold treatment for carcinoma left breast patients post-conservative surgery. Methods: Ten patients of carcinoma left breast post-conservative surgery were prospectively selected. Three sets of CT plain images were acquired, one with 5 mm deep inspiration BHW (DIBHR) and the other one with 1 mm BHW matching the lower threshold (DIBHL) and the third one with 1 mm BHW matching the upper threshold (DIBHH) as DIBHR. For all patients, forward intensity-modulated radiotherapy (FIMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were generated in the 5 mm BHW CT series and the same plan being copy and pasted in other series. Target volume doses and critical structure doses were tabulated. Results: Planning target volume coverage was adequate and no significant differences were found in any CT series. Significant differences noted in average left lung V5%, V10% and V18% doses between DIBHR versus DIBHH (p values = 0·0461, 0·0283 and 0·0213, respectively) and DIBHL versus DIBHH (p values = 0·0434, 0·0484 and 0·0334, respectively) for FIMRT plans and V18% doses in DIBHR versus DIBHH (p = 0·0067) in VMAT. No differences in heart and apex of heart doses were found. Left anterior descending artery (LAD) mean doses were significant in DIBHL versus DIBHR, DIBHR versus DIBHH and DIBHL versus DIBHH (p = 0·0012, 0·0444 and 0·0048, respectively) series for FIMRT plans and DIBHR versus DIBHH and DIBHL versus DIBHH (p = 0·0341, 0·0001) for VMAT plans. Finding: The changes in the breathing pattern inside DIBH window level cause some variation in LAD doses and no other significant differences in any parameters noted, so care should be taken while treating patients with preexisting cardiac conditions.


2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 445-445
Author(s):  
Jason K Molitoris ◽  
Christopher Brown ◽  
Shifeng Chen ◽  
Kimberly Marter ◽  
Kristin Spaeth ◽  
...  

445 Background: Stereotactic body radiation therapy(SBRT) is increasingly used in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). SBRT can be delivered using 3D conformal, static intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques. Prior data suggest advantages of using VMAT over IMRT for single-fraction pancreas SBRT. We performed the first dosimetric comparison of IMRT with one and two arc VMAT for 5-fraction pancreas SBRT, a more commonly used regimen. Methods: We generated 5-fraction SBRT plans for 12 LAPC patients who were previously treated at our institution with standard fractionation. The prescription dose was 33 Gy delivered in 6.6 Gy fractions. Assuming breath hold, 3 plans were generated for each patient: 9-beam static IMRT, 1-arc VMAT (VMAT1), and 2-arc VMAT (VMAT2) targeting the primary tumor. Target coverage and normal tissue doses were compared between the delivery techniques. Results: Each plan met target coverage planning goals. More VMAT2 plans (100%) were able to meet all normal tissue constraints than VMAT1 (83.3%) or IMRT (75%). Duodenal dose was most lowest for VMAT2 compared to VMAT1 and IMRT for mean dose (8.66 vs. 9.00 vs. 8.99 Gy); D4% (25.9 vs. 26.6 vs. 26.3 Gy); V10Gy (38.02 vs. 39.33 vs. 40.11%), V15Gy (23.98 vs. 25.88 vs. 25.97%), V20Gy (12.73 vs. 13.84 vs. 14.95%), and V25Gy (5.96 vs. 6.85 vs. 6.78%)(all p < 0.05). The tumors closest to the duodenum had statistically significantly improved V30Gy for VMAT2 compared to VMAT1 and IMRT (both p < 0.001). VMAT1 and VMAT2 reduced dose to the stomach, spinal cord, and liver compared to IMRT; kidney dose, however, was lowest using IMRT. VMAT2 plans had the highest conformity, but required the most monitor units to deliver. Delivery time was significantly longer with IMRT, compared to VMAT1 and VMAT2 (8.25 vs. 2.16 vs. 3.33 mins). Conclusions: These data suggest that VMAT2 should be strongly considered for 5-fraction pancreas SBRT because of superior normal tissue sparing, more conformal target volume coverage, and faster treatment delivery time (compared to IMRT). Further evaluation is needed to clarify whether the dosimetric advantages of VMAT2 are clinically significant.


Author(s):  
L. Redapi ◽  
L. Rossi ◽  
L. Marrazzo ◽  
J. J. Penninkhof ◽  
S. Pallotta ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Published treatment technique comparisons for postoperative left-sided whole breast irradiation (WBI) with deep-inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) are scarce, small, and inconclusive. In this study, fully automated multi-criterial plan optimization, generating a single high-quality, Pareto-optimal plan per patient and treatment technique, was used to compare for a large patient cohort 1) intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with two tangential fields and 2) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with two small tangential subarcs. Materials and methods Forty-eight randomly selected patients recently treated with DIBH and 16 × 2.66 Gy were included. The optimizer was configured for the clinical planning protocol. Comparisons between IMRT and VMAT included dosimetric plan parameters, estimated excess relative risks (ERR) for toxicities, delivery times, MUs, and deliverability accuracy at a linac. Results The automatically generated IMRT and VMAT plans applied in this study were similar or higher in quality than the manually generated clinical plans. For equal PTVin V95% (98.4 ± 0.9%), VMAT had significant advantages compared to IMRT regarding breast dose homogeneity and doses in heart and ipsilateral lung, at the cost of some minor deteriorations for contralateral breast (few cases with larger deteriorations) and lung. Conformality improved from 1.38 to 1.18 (p < 0.001). With VMAT, ERR for major coronary events and ipsilateral lung tumors were reduced by 3% (range: −1–12%) and 16% (range: −3–38%), respectively. MUs and delivery times were higher for VMAT. There were no statistical differences in γ passing rates. Conclusion For WBI in conservative therapy of left-sided breast patients treated with DIBH, VMAT with two tangential subarcs was generally dosimetrically superior to IMRT with two tangential static fields. Results need confirmation by robustness analyses.


2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Vincent Wing Cheung Wu ◽  
Man In Pun ◽  
Cho Pan Lam ◽  
To Wing Mok ◽  
Wah Wai Mok

This study compared the performance of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques: single arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (SA-VMAT) and double arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (DA-VMAT) with the static beam conventional intensity modulated radiotherapy (C-IMRT) for non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). Twelve stage I and II NSCLC patients were recruited and their planning CT with contoured planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) was used for planning. Using the same dose constraints and planning objectives, the C-IMRT, SA-VMAT, and DA-VMAT plans were optimized. C-IMRT consisted of 7 static beams, while SA-VMAT and DA-VMAT plans consisted of one and two full gantry rotations, respectively. No significant difference was found among the three techniques in target homogeneity and conformity. Mean lung dose in C-IMRT plan was significantly lower than that in DA-VMAT plan P=0.04. The ability of OAR sparing was similar among the three techniques, with no significant difference in V20, V10, or V5 of normal lungs, spinal cord, and heart. Less MUs were required in SA-VMAT and DA-VMAT. Besides, SA-VMAT required the shortest beam on time among the three techniques. In treatment of early stage NSCLC, no significant dosimetric superiority was shown by the VMAT techniques over C-IMRT and DA-VMAT over SA-VMAT.


2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pei-Chieh Yu ◽  
Ching-Jung Wu ◽  
Hsin-Hua Nien ◽  
Louis Tak Lui ◽  
Suzun Shaw ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document