Dosimetric comparison of 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy,volumetric modulated arc therapy,and helical tomotherapy for postoperative gastric cancer patients

Purpose

To compare dosimetric data for the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) between 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and helical tomotherapy [1].

Materials and methods

The dosimetric data for 15 gastric cancer patients treated with 3DCRT, VMAT, or HT techniques were used. Cumulative dosimetric parameters, homogeneity index (HI), and conformal index (CI) were compared for the PTV and OARs.

Results

The average maximum doses of PTV were significantly higher in VMAT plans than in 3DCRT (p = 0.04) and HT (p = 0.02) plans, whereas minimum dose values were significantly lower in 3DCRT plans compared with VMAT (p < 0.001) and HT (p = 0.02) plans. Liver mean dose (D _mean) and D _mean values for both kidneys were significantly lower in HT plans than in 3DCRT and VMAT plans. The doses in high dose regions (V30–V45) using 3DCRT plans were significantly higher compared to both VMAT and HT plans. The bowel V5–V30 and V45 was significantly less in HT plans compared to VMAT plans. There were no significant differences in dose sparing of the spinal cord.

Conclusions

The HT plans reduced the maximum dose applied to the target and improved the conformality and homogeneity of radiation, while providing sufficient PTV coverage.

     

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.     

Image-guided volumetric modulated arc therapy for breast cancer: a feasibility study and plan comparison with three-dimensional conformal and intensity-modulated radiotherapy

Objective:

To test the feasibility of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in breast cancer and to compare it with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) as conventional tangential field radiotheraphy (_conTFRT).

Methods:

12 patients (Stage I, 8: 6 left breast cancer and 2 right breast cancer; Stage II, 4: 2 on each side). Three plans were calculated for each case after breast-conserving surgery. Breast was treated with 50 Gy in four patients with supraclavicular lymph node inclusion, and in eight patients without the node inclusion. Multiple indices and dose parameters were measured.

Results:

V95% was not achieved by any modality. Heterogeneity index: 0.16 (VMAT), 0.13 [intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT)] and 0.14 (_conTFRT). Conformity index: 1.06 (VMAT), 1.15 (IMRT) and 1.69 (_conTFRT). For both indices, IMRT was more effective than VMAT (p=0.009, p=0.002). D_mean and V20 for ipsilateral lung were lower for IMRT than VMAT (p=0.0001, p=0.003). D_mean, V2 and V5 of contralateral lung were lower for IMRT than VMAT (p>0.0001, p=0.005). Mean dose and V5 to the heart were lower for IMRT than for VMAT (p=0.015, p=0.002).

Conclusion:

The hypothesis of equivalence of VMAT to IMRT was not confirmed for planning target volume parameter or dose distribution to organs at risk. VMAT was inferior to IMRT and 3D-CRT with regard to dose distribution to organs at risk, especially at the low dose level.

Advances in knowledge:

New technology VMAT is not superior to IMRT or conventional radiotherapy in breast cancer in any aspect.In Western countries, one in every eight females is diagnosed with breast cancer. Breast-conserving surgery with post-operative radiotherapy (RT) is the primary therapeutic strategy for Stages I and II of breast cancer. Systemic therapy is also part of the primary therapeutic strategy in most patients with Stage I and II breast cancer. RT substantially reduces the rate of local relapse and improves long-term survival [1]. However, RT is suggested to be associated with morbidity of the heart [2,3], lung [4,5], subcutaneous tissue and skin [6] and a risk of secondary malignancies [7–9].A large body of available data regarding the potential toxicity of RT was published between 1980 and the end of 1990 [1]. Special clinical interest has been focused on acute and mostly transient lung and skin toxicity, axillary problems and late cardiac events, in addition to the risk of secondary malignancies. This period was characterised by RT delivery using a fluoroscopic technique with two-dimensional planning followed by three-dimensional (3D) conformal techniques with two conventional tangential field radiotherapy (_conTFRT) fields. _conTFRT encompassed the whole breast, skin, minor ipsilateral lung volume, a part of the axillary region at Level 1 and a part of the heart in the case of left-sided cancer [10–12]. These areas have been sites for local toxicity, because RT principles, and thus homogeneous photon flux across treatment fields, remained unchanged.Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has been implemented in the past decade, permitting variation of fluence modulation across fields and allowing optimal dose administration according to an individual''s anatomy. IMRT results in improved avoidance of critical structures such as the heart, skin, axillary region and lung, while facilitating necessary tumour volume coverage [13,14]. Clinical data on IMRT show an improvement in dose homogeneity within the irradiated breast and sparing of the heart and lung [14–17]. However, a disadvantage of IMRT over _conTFRT is the long treatment duration owing to the higher number of fields and monitor units (MUs) involved. In addition, although IMRT reduces the volume of the heart and ipsilateral lung that receive high doses, it is associated with an increase in overall low-dose radiation. Despite the available clinical data, the wider use and specific indications for IMRT for breast cancer have not been established.In volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), technical extension of conventional fixed-field IMRT, an optimised dose distribution is possible with a single gantry rotation. Studies have shown that VMAT reduces the number of MUs and treatment delivery time [18–22], with similar or better planning target volume (PTV) coverage and sparing of organs at risk (OARs) than IMRT. Reports on VMAT for breast cancer are few and mainly concern planning comparisons [20,23–28] and very preliminary clinical data [29].The RapidArc® system (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) has recently been introduced in our department. Accordingly, we have begun examining the potential of RapidArc VMAT for breast cancer treatment in a prospective clinical setting to adequately evaluate dosimetric parameters, treatment planning and clinical implications as well the disadvantages.The present study aimed to compare the use of RapidArc VMAT with IMRT and _conTFRT for breast cancer therapy. We hypothesised that the use of RapidArc under routine clinical circumstances would be equivalent to or better than IMRT and _conTFRT in terms of PTV coverage and OAR sparing, while reducing both treatment time and MUs.     

Monaco与Pinnacle计划系统在肺癌容积旋转调强计划中的比较

目的 比较Monaco和Pinnacle 2套计划系统设计的肺癌容积旋转调强(VMAT)计划的计划质量、治疗效率和剂量验证精度.方法 选取20例肺癌病例,其中左肺癌10例,右肺癌10例,分别利用Monaco 3.0和Pinnacle 9.2两套计划系统设计VMAT计划,比较2种计划的靶区适形度、均匀性、最大剂量(D_max)、平均剂量(D_mean)与最小剂量(D_min)及危及器官的受照剂量;比较治疗计划执行时间、机器跳数和剂量验证的准确性.结果 除PTV的D_min外,Monaco计划靶区的其他各项剂量学指标都明显优于Pinnacle(t=5.927~12.034,P<0.05);2种计划除患侧肺V₁₀、全肺V₅外,Monaco计划肺的其他剂量学指标都差于Pinnacle(t=3.545~7.485,P<0.05),Monaco计划对心脏的保护明显优于Pinnacle(t=2.836~4.011,P<0.05),但较差的是Monaco计划执行时间(t=9.780,P<0.05)和MU数量(t=5.304,P<0.05).Monaco计划的Delta⁴验证结果优于Pinnacle(t=4.937,P<0.05).结论 对于肺癌的VMAT计划,Monaco与 Pinnacle两套计划系统都能满足临床应用要求;Pinnacle在肺的保护与计划执行方面有明显的优势,Monaco在靶区剂量分布和心脏的保护,以及剂量验证方面具有优势.     

Quality assurance of dynamic parameters in volumetric modulated arc therapy

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate quality assurance checks for accuracy of gantry speed and position, dose rate and multileaf collimator (MLC) speed and position for a volumetric modulated arc treatment (VMAT) modality (Synergy® S; Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden), and to check that all the necessary variables and parameters were synchronous.

Methods

Three tests (for gantry position–dose delivery synchronisation, gantry speed–dose delivery synchronisation and MLC leaf speed and positions) were performed.

Results

The average error in gantry position was 0.5° and the average difference was 3 MU for a linear and a parabolic relationship between gantry position and delivered dose. In the third part of this test (sawtooth variation), the maximum difference was 9.3 MU, with a gantry position difference of 1.2°. In the sweeping field method test, a linear relationship was observed between recorded doses and distance from the central axis, as expected. In the open field method, errors were encountered at the beginning and at the end of the delivery arc, termed the “beginning” and “end” errors. For MLC position verification, the maximum error was −2.46 mm and the mean error was 0.0153 ±0.4668 mm, and 3.4% of leaves analysed showed errors of >±1 mm.

Conclusion

This experiment demonstrates that the variables and parameters of the Synergy® S are synchronous and that the system is suitable for delivering VMAT using a dynamic MLC.The concept of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has been described in many studies [1-5]. VMAT is a system for intensity-modulated radiotherapy treatment (IMRT) delivery that achieves high dose conformity by optimising the dose rate, gantry speed and leaf positions of the dynamic multileaf collimator (MLC) [6]. One study [5] demonstrated quality assurance (QA) checks using dynamic MLC controller log files (Dynalog) for VMAT systems such as RapidArc® (Varian Medical Systems Inc., Palo Alto, CA). It is assumed that the actual delivery process is truly represented in the log files [6]. The major disadvantage of this method is that Dynalog files need to be validated against an independent system. The electronic portal imaging device (EPID) is a dependable system when corrections are made for systematic tilts and shifts [7,8] and when image sagging due to gantry angle [9] has been taken into account. A significant number of researchers have investigated MLC QA by film or EPID [7-13] to measure the accuracy of the MLC controller independently and ensure that the MLC edge positions agree with the radiation field edges to within 0.3 mm [14]. EPID measurements are highly reproducible, with a standard deviation of <0.1 mm for individual leaf/collimator positions and <0.05 mm for a 10×10 cm² field [7]. Few studies [15-17] have demonstrated commissioning, QA and patient-specific QA for VMAT using both the RapidArc and the Synergy® S (Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden) systems. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate QA checks for accuracy of gantry speed and position, dose rate, MLC leaf speed and MLC position, and to ensure that all the necessary variables and parameters were synchronous. These simple tests were designed to fulfil the requirements and limits recommended by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) for the clinical implementation of IMRT [18] and a recent recommendation by AAPM task group 142 (TG-142) [19] for the QA of medical accelerators.     

Motion analysis of target during stereotactic radiotherapy of lung tumors using volumetric modulated arc therapy

Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is a rotational intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) technique capable of acquiring projection images for cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Respiratory-correlated cone-beam computed tomography, namely 4D-CBCT, serves to assess the displacement of a tumor position between planning and treatment due to organ motion and respiration, and is important for more accurate radiation therapy. On the other hand, recently, a 320-detector row CT scanner, namely 4D-CT, has become available that allows axial volumetric scanning of a 16-cm-long range in a patient without table movement. The goal of our research is to establish a new method of verification during treatment in stereotactic body radiotherapy. In this study, we compare the movement of the tumor between "before treatment" using 4D-CT and "in treatment" using 4D-CBCT. Three patients (55-68 years of age) with lung tumors underwent CT scans for radiotherapy planning using 4D-CT scans to analyze the movement of the tumor before treatment. The patients were treated by VMAT while acquiring projection images. 4D-CBCT datasets were reconstructed from the projection images using in-house programs. The tumor positions in 4D-CT and 4D-CBCT were detected and the movement of the tumor between "before treatment" and "in treatment" was similar. The movement of the tumors during treatment was predictable from 4D-CT before treatment. Furthermore, 4D-CBCT clarified the tumor position during treatment and could reevaluate the actual tumor position and dose distribution. We have successfully shown the movement of the tumor between "before treatment" using 4D-CT and "in treatment" using 4D-CBCT.     

Dosimetric effects of roll rotational setup errors on lung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy using volumetric modulated arc therapy

Objective:

To evaluate the dosimetric effects of roll-rotational setup errors of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for lung cancer using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT).

Methods:

A total of 23 lung SABR cases were evaluated retrospectively. Each of the planning CT images was intentionally rotated by ±1°, ±2° and ±3°. After that, to simulate the translational couch correction, rotated CT images were moved along the x, y and z axis to match the centroid of the target volume in the rotated CT images with that in the original CT images. The differences in D_95% and V_100% of the target volume, D_0.35cc of spinal cord, D_0.35cc and D_5cc of oesophagus and V_20Gy of lung between the original and the rotated CT images were calculated.

Results:

The average differences in D_95% and V_100% of target volume, D_0.35cc of spinal cord, D_0.35cc and D_5cc of oesophagus and V_20Gy of lung were −0.3% ± 0.4% and −0.7% ± 2.4%, 1.6 ± 27.9 cGy, −1.6 ± 37.6 cGy, 15.9 ± 25.3 cGy and 0.0% ± 0.1%, respectively. The dosimetric changes in organs at risk (OARs) near the target volume were sometimes considerable due to roll-rotational setup errors, despite the translational correction, and those were patient specific.

Conclusion:

In the case of coplanar VMAT for lung SABR, dosimetric changes to the target volume due to roll-rotational setup errors could be compensated by translational correction, whereas those to the OARs could not in some cases.

Advances in knowledge:

Roll-rotational setup errors would increase the dose to OARs despite the translational correction.     

Effect of arc length on skin dose from hypofractionated volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy treatments of the lung and spine

Due to large doses per fraction, stereotactic ablative radiotherapy of lung or spine can lead to skin tissue toxicity, the amount of which depends on a variety of factors such as target location, beam geometry, and immobilization. The effect of arc length on spreading out entrance and exit doses and the corresponding predictions of skin reactions has not yet been studied for stereotactic body radiotherapy volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatments. 58 clinically relevant VMAT stereotactic body radiotherapy spine and lung plans were created for an anthropomorphic phantom utilizing a range of target locations, beam geometries and arc lengths. Skin dose was assessed by considering the National Cancer Institute skin reaction grades adjusted for 3 fraction treatments. While the skin volumes predicted to exhibit low grade reactions decreased with arc length, high grade reactions were found to increase at smaller arcs as well as at full arcs where a superposition of entrance and exit doses would occur. It is possible for skin dose to be effectively optimized by choice of arc length (within clinically relevant boundaries) and thus minimize the skin reaction. High skin doses are often attributed to effects arising from the distance between the planning target volume and patient surface but this study has demonstrated that VMAT arc length is of equal importance. Understanding this relationship will assist in minimizing skin reactions through modification of plan parameters and will provide clinicians more information for patient selection.     

6D治疗床联合锥形束CT引导下妇科肿瘤摆位误差及计划靶区外放边界研究

目的 探究6D治疗床联合锥形束CT(CBCT)容积旋转调强(VMAT)治疗妇科肿瘤患者的摆位误差,以及其靶区外放边界的变化趋势。方法 妇科肿瘤术后患者20例,采用HexaPOD^TMevo RT 6D治疗床和kV级CBCT影像引导的容积调强放射治疗。所有患者常规摆位后均行校正前CBCT扫描,利用6D治疗床在线校正后,再次行CBCT扫描,治疗后第3次行CBCT扫描,分别获得校正前、校正后、治疗后X射线容积影像,所有容积图像与计划CT图像采用自动骨性标记和手动微调的配准方式,获得三维平移(x、y、z)和旋转方向(Rx、Ry、Rz)的摆位误差,分析其摆位误差及计划靶区外放边界。结果 患者共行CBCT扫描594次,6D治疗床在线校正后,分次间摆位误差在y、z、Rx、Ry、Rz轴方向上明显缩小(t=6.21、-8.60、2.13、-8.51、-3.48,P<0.05)。外扩边界M_PTV在x轴、y轴、z轴方向上分别为2.20、3.43、2.00 mm,校正前后减少幅度为4.46~6.05 mm。结论 6D治疗床联合CBCT可明显提高妇科肿瘤盆腔放疗患者的摆位精度,同时可为精确设定计划靶区外放边界提供可靠依据。     

直肠癌术后盆腔不同放疗技术的剂量学研究

目的 比较直肠癌术后盆腔三维适形放疗(3DCRT)、适形调强放疗(IMRT)和简化调强(sIMRT)技术的三维剂量学特点,为直肠癌术后辅助放疗照射方法的优选提供依据。方法 选择Ⅱ～Ⅲ期直肠癌经腹前切除(Dixon手术)术后盆腔放疗的10例患者分别行3DCRT、sIMRT和IMRT3种计划设计,利用剂量体积直方图评价不同照射技术对靶区和正常组织照射剂量和靶区适形指数(CI)及剂量不均匀性指数(HI)。结果 不同放疗技术的剂量学研究:1CI为IMRT＞sIMRT＞3DCRT(t=7.48、9.13,P＜0.05)。23种治疗计划PTV靶区剂量分布的均匀度3DCRT最好,IMRT和sIMRT相似,但两者差异无统计学意义。3对膀胱的保护,IMRT明显优于3DCRT,sIMRT稍低于IMRT;对小肠的保护,sIMRT优于3DCRT,但IMRT并不比sIMRT具有更多优势;对结肠的保护,3种计划差异无统计学意义;对股骨头的保护,IMRT及sIMRT均明显好于3DCRT。IMRT、sIMRT对上述危及器官的保护优势主要体现在高剂量区。43种不同放疗技术的机器子野跳数sIMRT的子野跳数(543.0±69.8)与3DCRT技术(569.7±48.7)相当,但显著低于IMRT计划(770.3±73.1)。结论 在直肠癌术后放疗中sIMRT放疗技术具有最优性价比。     

COMPASS系统在鼻咽癌容积旋转调强剂量验证中的应用

目的 探讨COMPASS三维剂量验证系统在鼻咽癌容积旋转调强剂量验证中的应用.方法 选取8例鼻咽癌病例在Masterplan治疗计划系统中进行旋转调强计划设计,然后将治疗计划分别传输至COMPASS系统和控制加速器运行的MOSAIQ网络上.比较计划系统计算结果和COMPASS实际测量结果差异的主要指标,如靶区的平均剂量(Dmean)、95％体积剂量(D95％)和γ值,脊髓、脑干的Dmean和D1％左右腮腺的Dmean、V30.结果 计划系统计算结果和COMPASS实际测量的结果二者在靶区的γ通过率均＞95％,各个靶区的D95%平均偏差大多＜3％,各个靶区Dmean的偏差平均值在1％以内.脊髓和脑干的D1％的平均偏差分别为(4.3±3.0)％和(5.9±2.9)％,二者Dmean的平均偏差分别为(5.3±3.0)％和(8.0±3.5)％.COMPASS测量的脊髓和脑干的剂量都比计划系统计算的结果小.左右腮腺Dmean差异的平均值分别为(6.1±3.1)％、(4.7±4.4)％,V30的差异分别为(9.4±7.5)％和(9.4±9.9)％.结论 COMPASS三维剂量验证系统是容积旋转调强剂量验证的一个非常理想的工具,可以快速、直观地分析出靶区和正常器官理论和实际照射情况下的差异.     

VMAT与IMRT在局部晚期宫颈癌放疗中的剂量学差异

目的 比较分析容积弧形调强放射治疗（VMAT）与固定野调强适形放射治疗（IMRT） 在局部晚期宫颈癌延伸野放疗计划中的剂量学差异。 方法 回顾性分析2019年1月至2021年12月南京医科大学附属淮安第一医院收治的20例宫颈癌患者的临床资料,患者年龄（56.3±9.1）岁,范围39~78岁,均行CT扫描,对所有患者进行计划靶区（PTV）、转移淋巴结计划靶区（PGTVnd）以及膀胱、直肠、双侧股骨头、 肝、双肾、小肠、脊髓等危及器官的勾画。按照随机数字表法将患者分为IMRT 组和VMAT组,每组10例,分别进行IMRT 和VMAT的放疗计划;其中IMRT 组患者年龄（54.1±7.1）岁,VMAT组患者年龄（58.1±10.8）岁。比较2组患者靶区的剂量参数、危及器官的剂量参数以及机器总跳数、有效治疗时间。计量资料的组间比较采用t检验。 结果 在PTV中,VMAT组的适形指数（0.81±0.03）高于IMRT组（0.79±0.23）,且差异有统计学意义（t=−2.190,P=0.035）。在PGTVnd中,VMAT组的均匀性指数（0.06±0.01）低于IMRT组（0.07±0.01）,且差异有统计学意义（t=−2.315,P=0.026）。在膀胱受照射剂量中,VMAT组的V20 Gy（Vx Gy表示接受≥x Gy照射的体积占总体积的百分比）为（92.64±2.29）%,低于IMRT组的（93.98±1.47）%,且差异有统计学意义（t=2.220,P=0.032）。在直肠受照射剂量中,VMAT组的V20 Gy为（92.20±2.21）%,低于IMRT组的（93.68±1.88）%,且差异有统计学意义（t=2.282,P=0.028）。在肝受照射剂量中,VMAT组的V10 Gy、V20 Gy分别为（7.73±0.39）%、（5.14±0.68）%,均低于IMRT组的V10 Gy[（7.93±0.10）%]、V20 Gy[（5.51±0.16）%],且差异均有统计学意义（t=2.372、2.367,P=0.023、0.023）。在小肠受照射剂量中,VMAT组的V20 Gy、V30 Gy、V40 Gy和平均剂量（Dmean）分别为（77.67±4.64）%、（39.21±1.10）%、（18.35±3.05）%和（30.36±3.46） Gy,均低于IMRT组的V20 Gy[（80.24±1.05）%]、V30 Gy[（42.34±6.00）%]、V40 Gy[（22.34±6.01）%]和Dmean[（34.23±6.71） Gy],且差异均有统计学意义（t=2.228~2.628,均P<0.05）。在脊髓受照射剂量中,VMAT组的V20 Gy和Dmean分别为（38.81±2.33）%和（11.46±4.26） Gy,均低于IMRT组的V20 Gy[（42.88±6.19）%]和Dmean[（17.97±7.40） Gy],且差异均有统计学意义（t=2.752、3.410,P=0.009、0.002）。在左肾受照射剂量中,VMAT组的V20 Gy和Dmean分别为（11.67±2.36）%和（10.02±2.19） Gy,均低于IMRT组的V20 Gy[（15.56±7.50）%]和Dmean[（14.06±7.29） Gy],且差异均有统计学意义（t=2.216、2.375,P=0.033、0.023）。在右肾受照射剂量中,VMAT组的V20 Gy和Dmean分别为（11.72±2.31）%和（10.07±2.15） Gy,均低于IMRT组的V20 Gy[（16.67±6.92）%]和Dmean[（13.92±7.17） Gy],且差异均有统计学意义（t=3.030、2.295,P=0.004、0.027）。在左股骨头受照射剂量中,VMAT组的 V10 Gy、V20 Gy、V30 Gy、V40 Gy、V50 Gy及Dmean均低于IMRT组[（74.77±2.33）%对（78.51±7.46）%、（34.37±2.74）%对（38.91±7.20）%、（14.77±2.33）%对（18.51±7.46）%、（2.99±1.03）%对（4.98±3.73）%、（0.48±0.22）%对（0.99±0.65）%、（34.32±2.79） Gy对（38.41±6.67） Gy],且差异均有统计学意义（t=2.147~3.359,均P<0.05）。在右股骨头受照射剂量中,VMAT组的 V50 Gy为（0.02±0.01）%,低于 IMRT组的V50 Gy[0.03±0.01%],且差异有统计学意义（t=2.997,P=0.005）。VMAT组的机器总跳数为（536.16±42.37）,低于IMRT组的（614.44±59.44）,且差异有统计学意义（t=−5.362,P<0.001）;VMAT组的有效治疗时间为（152.23±0.31） min,短于IMRT组的（453.88±9.94） min,且差异有统计学意义（t=−151.708,P<0.001）。 结论 对于局部晚期宫颈癌,VMAT计划的适形度及均匀性较好,更能保护危及器官,且可减少机器跳数,缩短治疗时间。     

Single-arc volumetric-modulated arc therapy (sVMAT) as adjuvant treatment for gastric cancer: Dosimetric comparisons with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT)

To compare the dosimetric differences between the single-arc volumetric-modulated arc therapy (sVMAT), 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques in treatment planning for gastric cancer as adjuvant radiotherapy. Twelve patients were retrospectively analyzed. In each patient's case, the parameters were compared based on the dose-volume histogram (DVH) of the sVMAT, 3D-CRT, and IMRT plans, respectively. Three techniques showed similar target dose coverage. The maximum and mean doses of the target were significantly higher in the sVMAT plans than that in 3D-CRT plans and in the 3D-CRT/IMRT plans, respectively, but these differences were clinically acceptable. The IMRT and sVMAT plans successfully achieved better target dose conformity, reduced the V_20/30, and mean dose of the left kidney, as well as the V_20/30 of the liver, compared with the 3D-CRT plans. And the sVMAT technique reduced the V₂₀ of the liver much significantly. Although the maximum dose of the spinal cord were much higher in the IMRT and sVMAT plans, respectively (mean 36.4 vs 39.5 and 40.6 Gy), these data were still under the constraints. Not much difference was found in the analysis of the parameters of the right kidney, intestine, and heart. The IMRT and sVMAT plans achieved similar dose distribution to the target, but superior to the 3D-CRT plans, in adjuvant radiotherapy for gastric cancer. The sVMAT technique improved the dose sparings of the left kidney and liver, compared with the 3D-CRT technique, but showed few dosimetric advantages over the IMRT technique. Studies are warranted to evaluate the clinical benefits of the VMAT treatment for patients with gastric cancer after surgery in the future.     

Comparison of proton therapy and conformal X-ray therapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

This study compares the performance of one proton and four conformal X-ray planning techniques in treating non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The treatment volumes for 13 NSCLC patients undergoing radical radiotherapy were planned using the five different techniques and dose-volume histograms (DVH) were used extensively in the comparative analysis. The minimum dose to the phase 2 target volume was escalated to 90 Gy, or until the point at which pre-set tolerance limits of spinal cord or lung were exceeded. The proton plan could treat nine of the 13 patients up to a dose of 90 Gy. Among the four X-ray techniques, performance varied enormously. One of them could not treat any of the patients, even to the conventional 60 Gy level, without failing to meet one or more of the criteria, whilst another one could treat 10 out of the 13 patients, although with this technique only four were permitted to have the dose escalated to 90 Gy. It was also found that two of the 13 patients could not be treated by any of the proton or X-ray plans to the conventional level, and were therefore considered unsuitable for radical radiotherapy. Various issues in conformal NSCLC radiotherapy including organ movement, tumour control, other possible organs at risk etc., are also discussed.     

Feasibility study of volumetric modulated arc therapy with constant dose rate for endometrial cancer

To investigate the feasibility, efficiency, and delivery accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy with constant dose rate (VMAT-CDR) for whole-pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) of endometrial cancer. The nine-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), VMAT with variable dose-rate (VMAT-VDR), and VMAT-CDR plans were created for 9 patients with endometrial cancer undergoing WPRT. The dose distribution of planning target volume (PTV), organs at risk (OARs), and normal tissue (NT) were compared. The monitor units (MUs) and treatment delivery time were also evaluated. For each VMAT-CDR plan, a dry run was performed to assess the dosimetric accuracy with MatriXX from IBA. Compared with IMRT, the VMAT-CDR plans delivered a slightly greater V₂₀ of the bowel, bladder, pelvis bone, and NT, but significantly decreased the dose to the high-dose region of the rectum and pelvis bone. The MUs decreased from 1105 with IMRT to 628 with VMAT-CDR. The delivery time also decreased from 9.5 to 3.2 minutes. The average gamma pass rate was 95.6% at the 3%/3 mm criteria with MatriXX pretreatment verification for 9 patients. VMAT-CDR can achieve comparable plan quality with significant shorter delivery time and smaller number of MUs compared with IMRT for patients with endometrial cancer undergoing WPRT. It can be accurately delivered and be an alternative to IMRT on the linear accelerator without VDR capability.     

Conventional 2D (2DRT) and 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal cancer treatment

Purpose

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma represents a distinct entity as compared to other head and neck tumours. Radio-chemotherapy is the treatment of first choice in non-metastatic disease. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) allows the sparing of parotid glands, improving the toxicity profile. The aim of this study was to compare the results obtained with IMRT with those obtained with conventional 2D (2DRT) and 3D conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) in terms of tumour control, survival, acute and late toxicity.

Materials and methods

We reviewed the clinical records of 52 patients with histologically proven carcinoma of the nasopharynx (stage I–IVB according to the 2002 American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system) treated with curative intent between January 2003 and August 2011: 26 patients were treated with 2D or 3D technique (arm A) and 26 with IMRT technique (arm B) with simultaneous integrated boost. Fifty patients (96 %) received chemotherapy. Local control (LC), locoregional control (LRC), disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), acute and late toxicity were retrospectively evaluated.

Results

After a median follow-up of 37.6 months (69 months in arm A and 23 months in arm B), 69 % of patients were alive and disease-free, 10 % were alive with disease and 21 % died of disease, with an OS of 81 % at 2 years and 79 % at 5 years, a LC rate of 88 % at 2 years and 78 % at 5 years, a LRC rate of 80 % at 2 years and 73 % at 5 years and a DFS of 74 % at 2 years and 65 % at 5 years, with no statistically significant differences between IMRT and 2DRT/3DCRT. In multivariate analysis, the TNM stage and the volume treated at high dose correlated with DFS. No factor was found to be related to OS. Chronic toxicity was not statistically different in the two study groups and in particular ≥G2 xerostomia rates were 67 and 41 % in arm A and B, respectively (p = 0.10).

Conclusions

The findings of this study confirm that IMRT associated with chemotherapy, even with moderately hypofractionated regimens, allows good disease control with better results in terms of late xerostomia, although without statistically significant differences compared to 2DRT and 3DCRT. The hypothesis of an impact of IMRT on survival has yet to be confirmed.