Comparing radiation treatments using intensity-modulated beams, multiple arcs, and single arcs.

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics (Impact Factor: 4.59). 04/2010; 76(5):1554-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.04.003
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A dosimetric comparison of multiple static-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), multiarc intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT), and single-arc arc-modulated radiation therapy (AMRT) was performed to evaluate their clinical advantages and shortcomings.
Twelve cases were selected for this study, including three head-and-neck, three brain, three lung, and three prostate cases. An IMRT, IMAT, and AMRT plan was generated for each of the cases, with clinically relevant planning constraints. For a fair comparison, the same parameters were used for the IMRT, IMAT, and AMRT planning for each patient.
Multiarc IMAT provided the best plan quality, while single-arc AMRT achieved dose distributions comparable to those of IMRT, especially in the complicated head-and-neck and brain cases. Both AMRT and IMAT showed effective normal tissue sparing without compromising target coverage and delivered a lower total dose to the surrounding normal tissues in some cases.
IMAT provides the most uniform and conformal dose distributions, especially for the cases with large and complex targets, but with a delivery time similar to that of IMRT; whereas AMRT achieves results comparable to IMRT with significantly faster treatment delivery.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The main purposes of this study were to 1) investigate the dosimetric quality of uniform scanning proton therapy planning (USPT) for prostate cancer patients with a metal hip prosthesis, and 2) compare the dosimetric results of USPT with that of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Proton plans for prostate cancer (four cases) were generated in XiO treatment planning system (TPS). The beam arrangement in each proton plan consisted of three fields (two oblique fields and one lateral or slightly angled field), and the proton beams passing through a metal hip prosthesis was avoided. Dose calculations in proton plans were performed using the pencil beam algorithm. From each proton plan, planning target volume (PTV) coverage value (i.e., relative volume of the PTV receiving the prescription dose of 79.2 CGE) was recorded. The VMAT prostate planning was done using two arcs in the Eclipse TPS utilizing 6 MV X-rays, and beam entrance through metallic hip prosthesis was avoided. Dose computation in the VMAT plans was done using anisotropic analytical algorithm, and calculated VMAT plans were then normalized such that the PTV coverage in the VMAT plan was the same as in the proton plan of the corresponding case. The dose-volume histograms of calculated treatment plans were used to evaluate the dosimetric quality of USPT and VMAT. In comparison to the proton plans, on average, the maximum and mean doses to the PTV were higher in the VMAT plans by 1.4% and 0.5%, respectively, whereas the minimum PTV dose was lower in the VMAT plans by 3.4%. The proton plans had lower (or better) average homogeneity index (HI) of 0.03 compared to the one for VMAT (HI = 0.04). The relative rectal volume exposed to radiation was lower in the proton plan, with an average absolute difference ranging from 0.1% to 32.6%. In contrast, using proton planning, the relative bladder volume exposed to radiation was higher at high-dose region with an average absolute difference ranging from 0.4% to 0.8%, and lower at low- and medium-dose regions with an average absolute difference ranging from 2.7% to 10.1%. The average mean dose to the rectum and bladder was lower in the proton plans by 45.1% and 22.0%, respectively, whereas the mean dose to femoral head was lower in VMAT plans by an average difference of 79.6%. In comparison to the VMAT, the proton planning produced lower equivalent uniform dose (EUD) for the rectum (43.7 CGE vs. 51.4 Gy) and higher EUD for the femoral head (16.7 CGE vs. 9.5 Gy), whereas both the VMAT and proton planning produced comparable EUDs for the prostate tumor (76.2 CGE vs. 76.8 Gy) and bladder (50.3 CGE vs. 51.1 Gy). The results presented in this study show that the combination of lateral and oblique fields in USPT planning could potentially provide dosimetric advantage over the VMAT for prostate cancer involving a metallic hip prosthesis.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: The main objective of this study was to compare the dosimetric quality of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with that of proton therapy for high-risk prostate cancer. Patients and Materials: Twelve patients with high-risk prostate cancer previously treated with uniform scanning proton therapy (USPT) were included in this study. Proton planning was done using the XiO treatment planning system (TPS) with two 1800 parallel-opposed lateral fields. The VMAT planning was done using the RapidArc technique with two arcs in the Eclipse TPS. The VMAT and proton plans were calculated using the anisotropic analytical algorithm and pencil-beam algorithm, respectively. The calculated VMAT and proton plans were then normalized so that at least 95% of the planning target volume (PTV) received the prescription dose. The dosimetric evaluation was performed by comparing the physical dose-volume parameters, which were obtained from the VMAT and proton plans. Results: The average difference in the PTV doses between the VMAT and proton plans was within ±1%. On average, the proton plans produced a lower mean dose to the rectum (18.2 Gy (relative biological effectiveness [RBE]) vs. 40.0 Gy) and bladder (15.8 Gy (RBE) vs. 30.1 Gy), whereas the mean dose to the femoral heads was lower in the VMAT plans (28.3 Gy (RBE) vs. 19.3 Gy). For the rectum and bladder, the proton plans always produced lower (better) results in the low- and medium-dose regions, whereas the results were case-specific in the high-dose region. Conclusion: For the same target coverage, in comparison to the VMAT technique, the USPT is significantly better at sparing the rectum and bladder, especially in the low- and medium-dose regions, but results in a higher femoral head dose.
    05/2014; 1(1):22-33. DOI:10.14338/IJPT.13-00003.1
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the treatment plan adequacy and delivery efficiency among volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with one or two arcs and the conventional static-field dynamic multileaf collimator (dMLC) intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients undergoing oropharyngeal carcinoma. Fifteen patient cases were included in this investigation. Each of the cases was planned using step-and-shoot IMRT, VMAT with a single arc (Arc1) and VMAT with double arcs (Arc2). A two-dose level prescription for planning target volumes (PTVs) was delivered with 70 Gy/56 Gy in 30 fractions. Comparisons were performed of the dose-volume histograms (DVH) for PTVs, the DVH for organs at risk (OARs), the monitor units per fraction (MU/fx), and delivery time. IMRT and Arc2 achieved similar target coverage, but superior to Arc1. Apart from the oral cavity, Arc1 showed no advantage in sparing of OARs compared with IMRT, while Arc2 obtained equivalent or better sparing of OARs among the three techniques. VMAT reduced MU/fx and shortened delivery time remarkably compared with IMRT. Our results demonstrated that for oropharyngeal cases, Arc2 can achieve superior target coverage and normal tissue sparing, as well as a significant reduction in treatment time.
    Physica Medica 10/2014; 31(1). DOI:10.1016/j.ejmp.2014.09.003 · 1.85 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 27, 2014