Dosimetric Comparison of RapidArc with Fixed Gantry Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Treatment for Multiple Liver Metastases Radiotherapy

We wanted to compare the dosimetric difference and treatment efficiency of RapidArc and fixed gantry intensity-modulated radiotherapy treatment (IMRT) for multiple liver metastases. Computed tomography datasets of 10 patients were studied retrospectively. IMRT plans were generated using 5 fields and RapidArc using either 1 or 2 arcs. The dose distribution of planning target volume (PTV), organs at risk (OARs), and the normal tissue were compared. Monitor units and treatment time were scored to measure expected treatment efficiency. Both RapidArc and IMRT plans resulted in equivalent target coverage. There was no statistically significant difference for the maximum and the minimum dose of PTV. RapidArc plans achieved an improved conformity index compared with IMRT (RA1 = 1.68 ± 0.27, RA2 = 1.61 ± 0.25, IMRT = 1.80 ± 0.37). For OARs, all techniques respected planning objectives. RapidArc plans had a lower dose in V₄₀ of small bowel than IMRT, but were higher in mean dose of kidneys. Concerning the V₅, V₁₀, and V₁₅ of healthy tissue, RapidArc plans were higher than IMRT. However, the V₂₀, V₂₅, and V₃₀ of healthy tissue in RapidArc plans were lower than IMRT. Monitor units per fraction of RapidArc plans were about 40% or 46% of IMRT. Compared with IMRT plans, treatment time of RapidArc plans were reduced by 60% or 70%. All techniques respected planning objectives. RapidArc showed statistical improvements in conformity index and healthy tissue sparing with uncompromised target coverage. This, in combination with fewer monitor units and short delivery time, can lead to clinically significant advances for the treatment of multiple liver metastases.     

快速旋转调强与五野动态调强在乳腺癌 保乳术后放疗中的剂量学比较

目的 比较乳腺癌保乳术后RapidArc计划与五野动态调强(5F-IMRT)计划的剂量学差异。方法 选择8例左侧乳腺癌保乳术后女性患者,处方剂量为50 Gy/ 25次。分别设计RapidArc计划与5F-IMRT计划。比较两种计划的靶区适形度指数、均匀性指数、靶区覆盖度和危及器官的受照剂量体积,同时比较两组计划实施时的治疗时间和机器跳数。结果 在两种计划的靶区比较中,RapidArc计划的靶区适形度指数为(0.88±0.03),高于5F-IMRT计划的(0.79±0.02)(t=8.28,P<0.05);RapidArc计划的均匀性指数为(9.01±0.73),优于5F-IMRT计划的(10.44±1.08)(t=-2.73,P<0.05)。两组计划在同侧肺受照剂量体积比较中RapidArc计划的D_mean、V₁₀、V₂₀、V₃₀小于5F-IMRT计划(t=-7.53、-7.20、-8.39、-7.80,P<0.05),但RapidArc计划中的V₅较5F-IMRT计划增加了约16% (t=5.67,P<0.05);心脏的受照剂量体积比较中RapidArc计划中的D_mean、V₅、V₁₀均高于5F-IMRT(t=10.46、28.76、5.40,P<0.05),但在RapidArc计划中心脏的V₃₀低于5F-IMRT (t=-6.12,P<0.05)。对侧肺和对侧乳腺的V₅在RapidArc计划中明显高于5F-IMRT计划 (肺:t=21.50,P<0.05;乳腺:t=5.44,P<0.05)。RapidArc计划中机器跳数减少了25%,平均治疗时间节省了60%。结论 乳腺癌保乳术后RapidArc计划与5F-IMRT计划比较提高了靶区的适形度和均匀度,减少了高剂量区的受照体积,降低了机器跳数,缩短了治疗时间,但增加了正常组织低剂量区的受照体积。     

中心型肺癌快速旋转调强与固定射野动态调强放疗的剂量学比较

目的 比较快速旋转调强(RapidArc)与固定射野动态调强(dIMRT)两种调强放疗技术在中心型肺癌治疗计划中的剂量学差异。方法 利用瓦里安(Varian)计划系统(Eclipse 8.6)随机选取10例已行dIMRT治疗的中心型肺癌患者,采用容积调强(volumetric modulated arc therapy,VMAT)治疗技术设计RapidArc调强放疗计划。在满足靶区处方剂量要求(95%体积的PTV达到66 Gy)的情况下,通过剂量体积直方图DVH评价和比较两种类型治疗计划的PTV最大剂量 D_max、最小剂量 D _min和平均剂量 D_mean以及适形指数CI,危及器官的脊髓最大剂量 D _max,双肺的 V₅、V ₁₀、 V₂₀、 V₃₀,心脏 V₃₀,食管 V₅₀、V₆₀和平均剂量 D_mean,并比较两种治疗计划的总机器跳数(MU)和治疗时间。结果 在中心型肺癌治疗计划中,与dIMRT相比较,RapidArc靶区的 D _max、 D_min和 D_mean略有升高,但统计学差异无意义( P >0.05), 适形指数CI优于dIMRT,且差异具有统计学意义(t=-4.968,P=0.001)。双肺的 V₅、V₁₀有所上升, V₂₀、 V₃₀有所下降;心脏 V₃₀受照射体积也有不同程度降低,差异均具有统计学意义。RapidArc总MU减少32%,治疗时间为dIMRT的1/3。结论 两种治疗技术所设计的治疗计划剂量分布均能满足临床治疗需要。RapidArc靶区适形度更高,实际治疗时间明显缩短,同时MU的降低减少了治疗区域正常组织的不必要照射。     

三维适形、逆向调强及旋转调强放疗技术对部分乳腺外照射的剂量学比较

目的 比较三维适形(3 D-CRT)、逆向调强(IMRT)及旋转调强(V-MAT)3种部分乳腺外照射(EB-PBI)治疗计划的剂量学差异.方法 选择定位影像资料完整的12例保乳术后行EB-PBI患者,每例患者分别设计3D-CRT、IMRT、V-MAT 3种治疗计划,比较3种计划的靶区剂量分布、危及器官受照剂量及所需机器跳数(MU)和治疗时间.结果 3D-CRT计划的靶区适形度最差,V-MAT计划的处方剂量靶区覆盖率及靶区剂量均匀性最差.3D-CRT计划中患侧肺V5、V10和平均剂量低,而患侧肺V30高;计划间患侧肺V20差异无统计学意义;V-MAT计划中15、20和25 Gy剂量包绕的同侧正常乳腺体积少;对于心脏V5、平均剂量及最大剂量、对侧肺平均剂量、甲状腺平均和最大剂量,IMRT＞ V-MAT＞ 3D-CRT,计划间两两比较差异均有统计学意义(z=-2.94 ～ -2.09,P＜0.05).3D-CRT、IMRT和V-MAT计划所需MU值分别为417.6 ±34.4、772.8±54.4和631.0±109.0,计划间两两比较差异均有统计学意义(z=-2.93、-2.76、-2.93,P＜0.05);V-MAT计划施照时间短.结论 对于部分乳腺癌的放射治疗,旋转调强计划在降低患侧靶区外正常乳腺组织受照射剂量和减少治疗时间方面优势比较明显.     

容积旋转调强与固定野动态调强在宫颈癌术后放疗的剂量学比较

目的 比较容积旋转调强（RapidArc）与固定野动态调强（IMRT）两种宫颈癌术后放疗的剂量学参数及急性不良反应发生率,为临床治疗技术的选择提供参考依据。方法 选取35例宫颈癌术后盆腔预防放疗患者,其中,17例接受RapidArc,18例接受IMRT,处方剂量50 Gy,共25次。比较两组治疗计划的剂量-体积直方图（DVH）、靶区剂量适形度、均匀性、靶区及危及器官的剂量、机器跳数及治疗时间;对比两组患者治疗期间的急性肠道及膀胱反应发生率。结果 与IMRT相比,RapidArc靶区剂量适形度较高（t=3.13,P<0.05）,但均匀性略低（t=-4.25,P<0.05）;RapidArc计划中股骨头V₂₀、V₃₀均低于IMRT（t=2.56、2.34,P<0.05）;RapidArc计划机器跳数减少了52.1%,治疗所需时间缩短了46.8%。两组患者肠道、膀胱急性不良反应发生率相近。结论 对于宫颈癌术后盆腔预防放疗患者,采用RapidArc或IMRT技术均可达到靶区的剂量要求及保护危及器官的目的。RapidArc计划靶区剂量学参数、急性不良反应发生率与IMRT计划比较未见明显优势,但机器跳数与出束时间明显优于IMRT计划,实现了治疗效率的大幅提高。     

胸上段食管癌无均整器容积弧形调强与固定野调强放疗计划的剂量学比较

目的 探讨在瓦里安TrueBeam^TM直线加速器中使用无均整器出束容积弧形调强(RA-FFF)及常规固定野调强(IMRT)两种计划剂量学差异.方法 选择10例分期为cT_2-3N_0-1M_0-1a胸上段食管癌患者定位CT资料,使用ECLIPSE^TM 10.0.4治疗计划系统分别设计RA-FFF、IMRT根治性放疗计划,处方剂量为60 Gy/30次,比较2种计划的剂量学参数和执行效率.结果 2种计划靶区适形度相似,差异无统计学意义;IMRT计划的均匀性指数高于RA-FFF计划(t=7.298,P=0.008);RA-FFF计划中肺组织的V₂₀、V₅低于IMRT计划(t=2.451、2.604,P<0.05).RA-FFF及IMRT两种计划制定时间分别为(5.3±1.4)、(3.5±1.7)h(t=2.585,P<0.05),机器总跳数分别为632±213及734±132(t=-1.287,P=0.084),治疗执行时间分别为(2.2±0.9)、(4.5±1.3)min(t=4.60,P<0.01).结论 与IMRT计划相比,RA-FFF在胸上段食管癌治疗中具有相似的靶区剂量分布,可更好地保护肺组织,计划制定时间较长但执行效率较高.     

The use of RapidArc volumetric-modulated arc therapy to deliver stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic body radiotherapy to intracranial and extracranial targets

Twenty-three targets in 16 patients treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) were analyzed in terms of dosimetric homogeneity, target conformity, organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing, monitor unit (MU) usage, and beam-on time per fraction using RapidArc volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) vs. multifield sliding-window intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Patients underwent computed tomography simulation with site-specific immobilization. Magnetic resonance imaging fusion and optical tracking were incorporated as clinically indicated. Treatment planning was performed using Eclipse v8.6 to generate sliding-window IMRT and 1-arc and 2-arc RapidArc plans. Dosimetric parameters used for target analysis were RTOG conformity index (CI_RTOG), homogeneity index (HI_RTOG), inverse Paddick Conformity Index (PCI), D_mean and D5–D95. OAR sparing was analyzed in terms of D_max and D_mean. Treatment delivery was evaluated based on measured beam-on times delivered on a Varian Trilogy linear accelerator and recorded MU values. Dosimetric conformity, homogeneity, and OAR sparing were comparable between IMRT, 1-arc RapidArc and 2-arc RapidArc plans. Mean beam-on times ± SD for IMRT and 1-arc and 2-arc treatments were 10.5 ± 7.3, 2.6 ± 1.6, and 3.0 ± 1.1 minutes, respectively. Mean MUs were 3041, 1774, and 1676 for IMRT, 1-, and 2-arc plans, respectively. Although dosimetric conformity, homogeneity, and OAR sparing were similar between these techniques, SRS and SBRT fractions treated with RapidArc were delivered with substantially less beam-on time and fewer MUs than IMRT. The rapid delivery of SRS and SBRT with RapidArc improved workflow on the linac with these otherwise time-consuming treatments and limited the potential for intrafraction organ and patient motion, which can cause significant dosimetric errors. These clinically important advantages make image-guided RapidArc useful in the delivery of SRS and SBRT to intracranial and extracranial targets.     

High-dose radiotherapy in inoperable nonsmall cell lung cancer: Comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy,dynamic IMRT and 3D conformal radiotherapy

Conformal 3D radiotherapy (3D-CRT) combined with chemotherapy for inoperable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to the preferable high dose is often not achievable because of dose-limiting organs. This reduces the probability of regional tumor control. Therefore, the surplus value of using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques, specifically volumetric modulated arc therapy (RapidArc [RA]) and dynamic IMRT (d-IMRT) has been investigated. RA and d-IMRT plans were compared with 3D-CRT treatment plans for 20 patients eligible for concurrent high-dose chemoradiotherapy, in whom a dose of 60 Gy was not achievable. Comparison of dose delivery in the target volume and organs at risk was carried out by evaluating 3D dose distributions and dose-volume histograms. Quality of the dose distribution was assessed using the inhomogeneity and conformity index. For most patients, a higher dose to the target volume can be delivered using RA or d-IMRT; in 15% of the patients a dose ≥60 Gy was possible. Both IMRT techniques result in a better conformity of the dose (p < 0.001). There are no significant differences in homogeneity of dose in the target volume. IMRT techniques for NSCLC patients allow higher dose to the target volume, thus improving regional tumor control.     

旋转调强与固定野逆向调强放疗在颅脑多发转移瘤中的剂量学比较研究

目的 比较旋转调强(RapidArc)与固定野调强(IMRT)放疗在颅脑多发转移瘤中的剂量学差异。方法 针对10例多发脑转移瘤患者分别设计3种放疗计划:固定野逆向调强(IMRT),RapidArc单弧旋转调强(RA1),双弧旋转调强(RA2)。在保证计划均满足临床要求前提下,分别比较3种计划的靶区剂量分布、危及器官及靶区外正常组织的受照剂量、机器跳数以及治疗时间,探讨其剂量学差异。结果 3种计划均满足临床要求,在靶区适形度和均匀性方面,RA2计划优于IMRT(Z＝-2.803、-2.094,P<0.05)和RA1(Z＝-2.448、-2.191,P＜0.05),RA1计划与IMRT计划差别不大。RA1、RA2计划中的双侧晶体、双侧眼球、脑干的最大剂量均显著低于IMRT(Z＝-2.803～-2.191,P <0.05)。RA2计划评估的双侧视神经最大剂量均显著低于IMRT(Z＝-2.293、-2.701,P<0.05)。RA1、RA2计划中的机器跳数相对于IMRT平均分别减少了43%和24%,缩短了治疗时间。结论 单弧和双弧旋转调强计划均可达到或优于IMRT计划的靶区剂量分布,能更好地降低部分危及器官的受照剂量,同时可以显著降低机器跳数和治疗实施时间。     

乳腺癌保乳术后两野与多野动态调强的剂量学研究

目的 比较早期乳腺癌保乳术后切线2野动态调强与非共面多野调强放疗治疗靶区和危及器官的剂量学差异。方法 选取40例接受保乳术后放疗的左侧乳腺癌患者,在同一患者CT影像上,利用相同优化条件分别进行切线2野和非共面3、4、5野4种调强治疗计划设计。比较4种计划的靶区剂量分布、心脏、左肺及右侧乳腺受照剂量和体积,以及机器跳数的差异。结果 非共面4、5野调强计划适形度指数（CI）和均匀性指数（HI）均优于切线2野调强计划（P<0.05）,临床靶区（PTV）最大剂量（D_max）小于2野调强计划（P<0.05）,PTV最小剂量（D_min）大于2野调强计划（P<0.05）。3野与2野计划间无明显差异。4种计划的右乳接受5 Gy照射的百分体积（V₅）、心脏接受30 Gy照射的百分体积（V₃₀）及平均剂量（D_mean）、左肺接受20和5 Gy照射的百分体积（V₂₀、V₅）、平均剂量（D_mean）无明显差异,而机器跳数间差异有统计学意义（F=25.63,P<0.05）,2野调强跳数最少,5野最多。结论 保乳术后非共面4、5野调强计划与切线2野调强计划相比,靶区剂量分布更好,不明显增加正常组织、器官的受照射剂量,但机器跳数明显增加。     

容积旋转调强与固定野调强在晚期宫颈癌放疗的剂量学比较及疗效观察

目的 比较容积旋转调强（RapidArc）和固定野调强（IMRT）技术在宫颈癌根治性放疗的剂量学参数、急性不良反应发生率及疗效。方法 回顾性分析43例局部晚期（II_b~IV）宫颈癌患者,其中22例行容积旋转调强放疗,21例行固定野调强放疗,处方剂量50.4 Gy/28次,比较两组靶区剂量适形度、均匀性、靶区及危及器官的剂量、机器跳数及治疗时间;对比两组患者治疗期间的急性肠道及膀胱反应发生率;对比两组患者的完全缓解率和有效率。结果 与IMRT计划相比,RapidArc计划的靶区适形性指数CI略好,但差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）;两组计划的靶区均匀性指数HI比较,差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。RapidArc计划中膀胱的V₄₀、V₅₀以及直肠的V₃₀、V₄₀、V₅₀均低于IMRT计划（t=-2.386、-2.397、-5.525、-2.883、-2.686,P < 0.05）,RapidArc计划中股骨头的平均剂量低于IMRT计划（t=-2.395,P < 0.05）。RapidArc较IMRT平均MU减少了53.15%,治疗所需平均时间缩短了62.14%。两组患者肠道、膀胱急性反应发生率相近。两组患者完全缓解率和有效率相近。结论 晚期宫颈癌根治性放疗中,采用RapidArc技术可以降低危及器官受量,缩短患者的治疗时间。     

Volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy for esophageal cancer

A treatment planning study was performed to evaluate the performance of volumetric arc modulation with RapidArc (RA) against 3D conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and conventional intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques for esophageal cancer. Computed tomgraphy scans of 10 patients were included in the study. 3D-CRT, 4-field IMRT, and single-arc and double-arc RA plans were generated with the aim to spare organs at risk (OAR) and healthy tissue while enforcing highly conformal target coverage. The planning objective was to deliver 54 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV) in 30 fractions. Plans were evaluated based on target conformity and dose-volume histograms of organs at risk (lung, spinal cord, and heart). The monitor unit (MU) and treatment delivery time were also evaluated to measure the treatment efficiency. The IMRT plan improves target conformity and spares OAR when compared with 3D-CRT. Target conformity improved with RA plans compared with IMRT. The mean lung dose was similar in all techniques. However, RA plans showed a reduction in the volume of the lung irradiated at V_20Gy and V_30Gy dose levels (range, 4.62–17.98%) compared with IMRT plans. The mean dose and D_35% of heart for the RA plans were better than the IMRT by 0.5–5.8%. Mean V_10Gy and integral dose to healthy tissue were almost similar in all techniques. But RA plans resulted in a reduced low-level dose bath (15–20 Gy) in the range of 14–16% compared with IMRT plans. The average MU needed to deliver the prescribed dose by RA technique was reduced by 20–25% compared with IMRT technique. The preliminary study on RA for esophageal cancers showed improvements in sparing OAR and healthy tissue with reduced beam-on time, whereas only double-arc RA offered improved target coverage compared with IMRT and 3D-CRT plans.     

RapidArc combined with the active breathing coordinator provides an effective and accurate approach for the radiotherapy of hepatocellular carcinoma

Purpose

The goal of this research was to investigate the feasibility of volumetric modulated arc therapy, RapidArc (RA), in association with the active breathing coordinator (ABC) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with radiotherapy.

Patients and materials

A total of 12?patients with HCC, after receiving transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) treatment, underwent three-dimensional computer tomography (3D-CT) scanning associated with ABC using end inspiration hold (EIH), end expiration hold (EEH), and free breathing (FB) techniques. The three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and RA plans (three 135° arcs) were designed on different CT images, respectively. The liver volume, gross tumor volume (GTV), and planning target volume (PTV) of the three breath status and the dosimetric differences of the different plans were compared.

Results

There were no significant differences in the volumes of live and GTV between the three breathing techniques (p?>?0.05); the PTV in FB was greater than in the EEH and EIH (p?20, V₃₀, and V₄₀ of normal liver compared to 3D-CRT, while the V₅ and V₁₀ in RA were higher than in IMRT. The mean values in mean dose, V₁₀, V₂₀, V₃₀, and V₄₀ of the normal liver were reduced from 13.12?Gy, 46%, 24%, 13%, and 8% in RA_FB to 10.23?Gy, 35%, 16%, 8%, and 5% in RA_EEH and 9.23?Gy, 32%, 16%, 8%, and 5% in RA_EIH?, respectively. In addition, the treatment time of RA was equal to 3D-CRT, which was significantly shorter than IMRT.

Conclusion

RA in conjunction with ABC for the treatment of HCC with radiotherapy can achieve better dose delivery and ensure the accuracy of the target volume, which spares more organs at risk, uses fewer monitor units, and shortens treatment time.     

AAA and AXB algorithms for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma using IMRT and RapidArc techniques

The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and 2 reporting systems (AXB-D_m and AXB-D_w) of Acuros XB algorithm (AXB) on clinical plans of nasopharyngeal patients using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and RapidArc (RA) techniques. Six plans of different algorithm-technique combinations are performed for 10 patients to calculate dose-volume histogram (DVH) physical parameters for planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OARs). The number of monitor units (MUs) and calculation time are also determined. Good coverage is reported for all algorithm-technique combination plans without exceeding the tolerance for OARs. Regardless of the algorithm, RA plans persistently reported higher D_2% values for PTV-70. All IMRT plans reported higher number of MUs (especially with AXB) than did RA plans. AAA-IMRT produced the minimum calculation time of all plans. Major differences between the investigated algorithm-technique combinations are reported only for the number of MUs and calculation time parameters. In terms of these 2 parameters, it is recommended to employ AXB in calculating RA plans and AAA in calculating IMRT plans to achieve minimum calculation times at reduced number of MUs.     

乳腺癌保乳术后部分乳腺三种放疗计划的剂量学比较

目的 比较容积弧形调强（VMAT）、固定野动态调强（IMRT）及三维适形放疗（3D-CRT）技术对乳腺癌保乳术后采用部分乳腺放疗的剂量学差异。方法 选取20例临床分期为T_1-2N₀M₀的早期乳腺癌保乳术后患者进行VMAT,并同时设计IMRT及3D-CRT,比较3种计划的剂量学参数,包括剂量-体积直方图（DVH）、靶区剂量适形度、靶区及危及器官的剂量、机器跳数及治疗时间。结果 IMRT及VMAT计划靶区剂量分布优于3D-CRT计划,其中最大剂量,平均剂量及适形指数（CI）组间比较差异具有统计学意义（F=14.86、8.57、18.23,P<0.05）。正常组织受量：VMAT计划在患侧乳腺V₅上优于IMRT及3D-CRT计划（F=5.83,P<0.05）;IMRT在患侧肺V₂₀、V₅及D₅上有优势（F=16.39、3.62、4.81,P<0.05）;在对侧肺的统计中,IMRT计划在最大剂量及D₅上可以得到比VMAT和3D-CRT更低的剂量（F=3.99、3.43,P<0.05）;VMAT、3D-CRT和IMRT计划所需机器跳数值分别为621.0±111.9、707.3±130.9、1161.4±315.6,计划间的差异有统计学意义（F=31.30,P<0.05）。VMAT、3D-CRT和IMRT计划所需治疗时间分别为（1.5±0.2）、（7.0±1.6）、（11.5±1.9）min。结论 IMRT和VMAT计划靶区剂量分布优于3D-CRT计划,而不提高患侧肺剂量。对于部分乳腺癌的放疗,容积弧形调强放疗在降低机器跳数和减少治疗时间方面具有明显优势。     

三维适形、逆向调强和旋转调强放疗技术治疗胸段食管癌的剂量学比较

目的 比较胸段食管癌3种放疗技术( 3D-CRT、IMRT、RapidArc)的剂量学特点,并分析3种技术的优劣及应用特点.方法 15例胸段食管癌患者入组,依据CT图像,勾画靶区,针对患者的同一套CT图像的相同靶区分别制定3D-CRT、5野IMRT(IMRT5)、7野IMRT( IMRT7)、9野IMRT(IMRT9)、单弧Arc( Arc1)、双弧Arc( Arc2)共6套计划.PTV处方剂量为40 Gy分20次4周+19.6 Gy分14次7d.结果 3D-CRT计划各项靶区剂量学参数明显差于IMRT计划及RapidArc计划(t=5.77、3.52,P＜0.05),6套计划的PTV V95(％)分别为:3D-CRT (91.55 ±2.90),IMRT5(96.66±1.05),IMRT7 (96.87±1.23),IMRT (96.81±1.16),Arcl (94.98±1.41),Arc2 (95.93±1.32).RapidArc计划的靶区适形度(CI)最好(t=3.76,10.01,P＜0.05),IMRT计划的靶区均匀性(HI)最好(t =3.93、3.37,P＜0.05).危及器官参数RapidArc与IMRT各计划之间差异无统计学意义.3D-CRT和RapidArc计划的机器跳数明显少于IMRT计划,差异高达75％.结论 对于胸段食管癌患者,采用IMRT或RapidArc技术可以在保护正常组织的同时,涵盖临床必需的治疗靶区.3D-CRT计划对降低正常组织低剂量散射区方面优势明显.RapidArc计划靶区剂量学参数与IMRT计划比较未见明显优势.     

Chest wall radiotherapy with volumetric modulated arcs and the potential role of flattening filter free photon beams

Purpose

The goal of the work was to assess the role of RapidArc treatments in chest wall irradiation after mastectomy and determine the potential benefit of flattening filter free beams.

Methods and material

Planning CT scans of 10?women requiring post-mastectomy chest wall radiotherapy were included in the study. A dose of 50?Gy in 2?Gy fractions was prescribed. Organs at risk (OARs) delineated were heart, lungs, contralateral breast, and spinal cord. Dose–volume metrics were defined to quantify the quality of concurrent treatment plans assessing target coverage and sparing of OARs. Plans were designed for conformal 3D therapy (3DCRT) or for RapidArc with double partial arcs (RA). RapidArc plans were optimized for both conventional beams as well as for unflattened beams (RAF). The goal for this planning effort was to cover 100% of the planning target volume (PTV) with ≥?90% of the prescribed dose and to minimize the volume inside the PTV receiving >?105% of the dose. The mean ipsilateral lung dose was required to be lower than 15?Gy and V_20?Gy?Results All techniques met planning objectives for PTV and for lung (3DCRT marginally failed for V_20?Gy). RA plans showed superiority compared to 3DCRT in the medium to high dose region for the ipsilateral lung. Heart irradiation was minimized by RAF plans with ~4.5?Gy and ~15?Gy reduction in maximum dose compared to RA and 3DCRT, respectively. RAF resulted in superior plans compared to RA with respect to contralateral breast and lung with a reduction of ~1.7?Gy and 1.0?Gy in the respective mean doses.

Conclusion

RapidArc treatment resulted in acceptable plan quality with superior ipsilateral tissue sparing compared to traditional techniques. Flattening filter free beams, recently made available for clinical use, might provide further healthy tissue sparing, particularly in contralateral organs, suggesting their applicability for large and complex targets.     

The effect of the target-organ geometric complexity on the choice of delivery between RapidArc and sliding-window IMRT for nasopharyngeal carcinoma

We attempted to assess the effect of target-organ geometric complexity on the plan quality of sliding-window intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), double-arc (RA2), and triple-arc (RA3) RapidArc volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Plans for 9-field sliding-window IMRT, RA2, and RA3 were optimized for 36 patients with NPC ranging from T1 to T4 tumors. Initially the patients were divided into 2 groups, with group A representing the most simple early stage (T1 and T2) cases, whereas group B represented the more complex advanced cases (T3 and T4). Evaluation was performed based on target conformity, target dose homogeneity, organ-sparing capability, and delivery efficiency. Based on the plan quality results, a subgroup of advanced cases, group B2, representing the most demanding task was distinguished and reported separately from the rest of the group B cases, B1. Detailed analysis was performed on the anatomic features for each group of cases, so that planners can easily identify the differences between B1 and B2. For the group A cases, RA3 plans were superior to the IMRT plans in terms of organ sparing, whereas target conformity and dose homogeneity were similar. For the group B1 cases, the RA3 plans produced almost equivalent plan quality as the IMRT plans. For the group B2 cases, for most of which large target volumes were adjacent to (5 mm or less) and wrapping around the brain stem, RA2 and RA3 were inferior to the IMRT regarding both target dose homogeneity and conformity. RA2 plans were slightly inferior to IMRT and RA3 plans for most cases. The plan comparison results depend on the target to brain stem distances and the target sizes. The plan quality results together with the anatomic information may allow the evaluation of the 3 treatment options before actual planning.     

A dosimetric comparison of RapidArc and IMRT with hypofractionated simultaneous integrated boost to the prostate for treatment of prostate cancer

Objective:

To compare the dosimetric results and treatment delivery efficiency among RapidArc® (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA), 7-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (7-f IMRT) and 9-field IMRT (9-f IMRT) with hypofractionated simultaneous integrated boost to the prostate.

Methods:

RapidArc, 7-f IMRT and 9-f IMRT plans were created for 21 consecutive patients treated for high-risk prostate cancer using the Eclipse™ treatment planning system (Varian Medical Systems). All plans were designed to deliver 70.0 Gy in 28 fractions to the prostate planning target volume (PTV) while simultaneously delivering 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions to the pelvic nodal PTV. Target coverage and sparing of organs at risk (OARs) were compared across techniques. The total number of monitor units (MUs) and the treatment time were used to assess treatment delivery efficiency.

Results:

RapidArc resulted in slightly superior conformity and homogeneity of prostate PTV, whereas all plans were comparable with respect to dose to the nodal PTV. Although OARs sparing for RapidArc and 7-f IMRT plans were almost equivalent, 9-f IMRT achieved better sparing of the rectum and bladder than RapidArc and 7-f IMRT. RapidArc provided the highest treatment delivery efficiency with the lowest MUs and shortest treatment time.

Conclusion:

RapidArc resulted in similar OAR sparing to 7-f IMRT, whereas 9-f IMRT provided the best OAR sparing. Treatment delivery efficiency is significantly higher for RapidArc.

Advances in knowledge:

This study validated the feasibility and limitations of RapidArc in the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer with complex pelvic target volumes.Radiotherapy has played an important role in the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer. Several randomised controlled trials have demonstrated that high-dose radiotherapy improves prostate-specific antigen control, and a recently published meta-analysis [1] showed that high-dose radiotherapy is superior to conventional-dose radiotherapy in preventing biochemical or clinical failure and prostate cancer-specific death. However, dose escalation has been limited by toxicity in conventional techniques. Therefore, prostate cancer is one of the most common tumour sites treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), which enables the delivery of highly conformal dose distribution to the target while reducing the dose to critical organs. IMRT also has the ability to produce inhomogeneous dose distribution, which allows for simultaneous differential dose delivery to multiple tumour targets (simultaneous integrated boost). Despite the obvious benefits of IMRT, there are some disadvantages. The potential downsides of IMRT include the increased time required for radiotherapy delivery and increased monitor units (MUs) needed compared with conventional three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy.Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is a relatively new rotational radiation therapy technique based on the idea of delivering IMRT with continuous dynamic modulation of the dose rate, field aperture and gantry speed. Compared with IMRT, the potential benefit of VMAT is the increase in delivery efficiency, including a shorter treatment time and a lower number of MUs.Several recent studies have compared VMAT with IMRT for prostate radiotherapy [2–13]. Although shortened treatment time is a common finding, there are inconsistencies in the dosimetric outcome. Many studies considering relatively simple target volumes that included prostate only or prostate with seminal vesicles found that VMAT achieved equal or better normal tissue sparing over IMRT [2,3,5,6,8–10,12]. However, very few studies have focused on more complex pelvic target volumes, including the prostate, seminal vesicles and pelvic lymph nodes [4,7,11,13]. Some of these studies found largely equivalent sparing of organs at risk (OARs) between VMAT and IMRT [7,13]. However, other planning studies have reported contradictory results. Yoo et al [4] noted superior OARs sparing with IMRT to VMAT. Myrehaug et al [11] found VMAT to have no consistent dosimetric advantage over IMRT. Thus, those studies have yielded mixed results. Our study aims to expand such studies to quantitatively evaluate VMAT for prostate cancer cases with complex pelvic target volumes and simultaneous integrated boost techniques.RapidArc® is one of the VMAT techniques implementing the progressive resolution optimisation algorithm in the Eclipse™ planning system by Varian Medical Systems (Palo Alto, CA). In the present study, we compare the performance of RapidArc, 7-field IMRT (7-f IMRT) and 9-field IMRT (9-f IMRT) with hypofractionated simultaneous integrated boost to the prostate for patients with high-risk prostate cancer. This study focused on the evaluation of the dosimetric results and treatment delivery efficiency.