Volumetric modulated arc therapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A dosimetric comparison with TomoTherapy and step-and-shoot IMRT

Szu Huai Lu, Jason Chia Hsien Cheng, Sung Hsin Kuo, Jason Jeun Shenn Lee, Liang Hsin Chen, Jian Kuen Wu, Yu Hsuan Chen, Wan Yu Chen, Shu Yu Wen, Fok Ching Chong, Chien-Jang Wu, Chun Wei Wang

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    57 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Purpose: Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), a novel technique, employs a linear accelerator to conduct dynamic modulation rotation radiotherapy. The goal of this study was to compare VMAT with helical tomotherapy (HT) and step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients with regard to the sparing effect on organs at risk (OARs), dosimetric quality, and efficiency of delivery. Materials and methods: Twenty patients with NPC treated by HT were re-planned by VMAT (two arcs) and IMRT (7-9 fields) for dosimetric comparison. The target area received three dose levels (70, 60, and 54 Gy) in 33 fractions using simultaneous integrated boosts technique. The Philips Pinnacle Planning System 9.0 was adopted to design VMAT, using SmartArc as the planning algorithm. For a fair comparison, the planning target volume (PTV) coverage of the 3 plans was normalized to the same level. Dosimetric comparisons between VMAT, HT, and IMRT plans were analyzed to evaluate (1) coverage, homogeneity, and conformity of PTV, (2) sparing of OARs, (3) delivery time, and (4) monitor units (MUs). Results: The VMAT, HT, and IMRT plans had similar PTV coverage with an average of 96%. There was no significant difference between VMAT and HT in homogeneity, while the homogeneity indices of VMAT (1.06) and HT (1.06) were better than IMRT plans (1.07, p < 0.05). HT plans provided a better conformity index (1.17) than VMAT (1.28, p = 0.01) and IMRT (1.36, p = 0.02). When compared with IMRT, VMAT and HT had a better sparing effect on brain stem and spinal cord (p < 0.05). The effect of parotid sparing was similar between VMAT (mean = 26.3 Gy) and HT (mean = 27.5 Gy), but better than IMRT (mean = 31.3 Gy, p < 0.01). The delivery time per fraction for VMAT (5.7 min) were much lower than for HT (9.5 min, p < 0.01) and IMRT (9.2 min, p < 0.01). Conclusions: Our results indicate that VMAT provides better sparing of normal tissue, homogeneity, and conformity than IMRT, and shorter delivery time than HT.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)324-330
    Number of pages7
    JournalRadiotherapy and Oncology
    Volume104
    Issue number3
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2012 Sep 1

    Fingerprint

    Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy
    Radiotherapy
    Nasopharyngeal carcinoma
    Organs at Risk

    Keywords

    • Intensity-modulated radiation therapy
    • Nasopharyngeal carcinoma
    • TomoTherapy
    • Volumetric modulated arc therapy

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Hematology
    • Oncology
    • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

    Cite this

    Volumetric modulated arc therapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma : A dosimetric comparison with TomoTherapy and step-and-shoot IMRT. / Lu, Szu Huai; Cheng, Jason Chia Hsien; Kuo, Sung Hsin; Lee, Jason Jeun Shenn; Chen, Liang Hsin; Wu, Jian Kuen; Chen, Yu Hsuan; Chen, Wan Yu; Wen, Shu Yu; Chong, Fok Ching; Wu, Chien-Jang; Wang, Chun Wei.

    In: Radiotherapy and Oncology, Vol. 104, No. 3, 01.09.2012, p. 324-330.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Lu, SH, Cheng, JCH, Kuo, SH, Lee, JJS, Chen, LH, Wu, JK, Chen, YH, Chen, WY, Wen, SY, Chong, FC, Wu, C-J & Wang, CW 2012, 'Volumetric modulated arc therapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A dosimetric comparison with TomoTherapy and step-and-shoot IMRT', Radiotherapy and Oncology, vol. 104, no. 3, pp. 324-330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2011.11.017
    Lu, Szu Huai ; Cheng, Jason Chia Hsien ; Kuo, Sung Hsin ; Lee, Jason Jeun Shenn ; Chen, Liang Hsin ; Wu, Jian Kuen ; Chen, Yu Hsuan ; Chen, Wan Yu ; Wen, Shu Yu ; Chong, Fok Ching ; Wu, Chien-Jang ; Wang, Chun Wei. / Volumetric modulated arc therapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma : A dosimetric comparison with TomoTherapy and step-and-shoot IMRT. In: Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2012 ; Vol. 104, No. 3. pp. 324-330.
    @article{1630470ecf864719ad94bb3c393113c1,
    title = "Volumetric modulated arc therapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A dosimetric comparison with TomoTherapy and step-and-shoot IMRT",
    abstract = "Purpose: Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), a novel technique, employs a linear accelerator to conduct dynamic modulation rotation radiotherapy. The goal of this study was to compare VMAT with helical tomotherapy (HT) and step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients with regard to the sparing effect on organs at risk (OARs), dosimetric quality, and efficiency of delivery. Materials and methods: Twenty patients with NPC treated by HT were re-planned by VMAT (two arcs) and IMRT (7-9 fields) for dosimetric comparison. The target area received three dose levels (70, 60, and 54 Gy) in 33 fractions using simultaneous integrated boosts technique. The Philips Pinnacle Planning System 9.0 was adopted to design VMAT, using SmartArc as the planning algorithm. For a fair comparison, the planning target volume (PTV) coverage of the 3 plans was normalized to the same level. Dosimetric comparisons between VMAT, HT, and IMRT plans were analyzed to evaluate (1) coverage, homogeneity, and conformity of PTV, (2) sparing of OARs, (3) delivery time, and (4) monitor units (MUs). Results: The VMAT, HT, and IMRT plans had similar PTV coverage with an average of 96{\%}. There was no significant difference between VMAT and HT in homogeneity, while the homogeneity indices of VMAT (1.06) and HT (1.06) were better than IMRT plans (1.07, p < 0.05). HT plans provided a better conformity index (1.17) than VMAT (1.28, p = 0.01) and IMRT (1.36, p = 0.02). When compared with IMRT, VMAT and HT had a better sparing effect on brain stem and spinal cord (p < 0.05). The effect of parotid sparing was similar between VMAT (mean = 26.3 Gy) and HT (mean = 27.5 Gy), but better than IMRT (mean = 31.3 Gy, p < 0.01). The delivery time per fraction for VMAT (5.7 min) were much lower than for HT (9.5 min, p < 0.01) and IMRT (9.2 min, p < 0.01). Conclusions: Our results indicate that VMAT provides better sparing of normal tissue, homogeneity, and conformity than IMRT, and shorter delivery time than HT.",
    keywords = "Intensity-modulated radiation therapy, Nasopharyngeal carcinoma, TomoTherapy, Volumetric modulated arc therapy",
    author = "Lu, {Szu Huai} and Cheng, {Jason Chia Hsien} and Kuo, {Sung Hsin} and Lee, {Jason Jeun Shenn} and Chen, {Liang Hsin} and Wu, {Jian Kuen} and Chen, {Yu Hsuan} and Chen, {Wan Yu} and Wen, {Shu Yu} and Chong, {Fok Ching} and Chien-Jang Wu and Wang, {Chun Wei}",
    year = "2012",
    month = "9",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1016/j.radonc.2011.11.017",
    language = "English",
    volume = "104",
    pages = "324--330",
    journal = "Radiotherapy and Oncology",
    issn = "0167-8140",
    publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",
    number = "3",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Volumetric modulated arc therapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma

    T2 - A dosimetric comparison with TomoTherapy and step-and-shoot IMRT

    AU - Lu, Szu Huai

    AU - Cheng, Jason Chia Hsien

    AU - Kuo, Sung Hsin

    AU - Lee, Jason Jeun Shenn

    AU - Chen, Liang Hsin

    AU - Wu, Jian Kuen

    AU - Chen, Yu Hsuan

    AU - Chen, Wan Yu

    AU - Wen, Shu Yu

    AU - Chong, Fok Ching

    AU - Wu, Chien-Jang

    AU - Wang, Chun Wei

    PY - 2012/9/1

    Y1 - 2012/9/1

    N2 - Purpose: Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), a novel technique, employs a linear accelerator to conduct dynamic modulation rotation radiotherapy. The goal of this study was to compare VMAT with helical tomotherapy (HT) and step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients with regard to the sparing effect on organs at risk (OARs), dosimetric quality, and efficiency of delivery. Materials and methods: Twenty patients with NPC treated by HT were re-planned by VMAT (two arcs) and IMRT (7-9 fields) for dosimetric comparison. The target area received three dose levels (70, 60, and 54 Gy) in 33 fractions using simultaneous integrated boosts technique. The Philips Pinnacle Planning System 9.0 was adopted to design VMAT, using SmartArc as the planning algorithm. For a fair comparison, the planning target volume (PTV) coverage of the 3 plans was normalized to the same level. Dosimetric comparisons between VMAT, HT, and IMRT plans were analyzed to evaluate (1) coverage, homogeneity, and conformity of PTV, (2) sparing of OARs, (3) delivery time, and (4) monitor units (MUs). Results: The VMAT, HT, and IMRT plans had similar PTV coverage with an average of 96%. There was no significant difference between VMAT and HT in homogeneity, while the homogeneity indices of VMAT (1.06) and HT (1.06) were better than IMRT plans (1.07, p < 0.05). HT plans provided a better conformity index (1.17) than VMAT (1.28, p = 0.01) and IMRT (1.36, p = 0.02). When compared with IMRT, VMAT and HT had a better sparing effect on brain stem and spinal cord (p < 0.05). The effect of parotid sparing was similar between VMAT (mean = 26.3 Gy) and HT (mean = 27.5 Gy), but better than IMRT (mean = 31.3 Gy, p < 0.01). The delivery time per fraction for VMAT (5.7 min) were much lower than for HT (9.5 min, p < 0.01) and IMRT (9.2 min, p < 0.01). Conclusions: Our results indicate that VMAT provides better sparing of normal tissue, homogeneity, and conformity than IMRT, and shorter delivery time than HT.

    AB - Purpose: Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), a novel technique, employs a linear accelerator to conduct dynamic modulation rotation radiotherapy. The goal of this study was to compare VMAT with helical tomotherapy (HT) and step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients with regard to the sparing effect on organs at risk (OARs), dosimetric quality, and efficiency of delivery. Materials and methods: Twenty patients with NPC treated by HT were re-planned by VMAT (two arcs) and IMRT (7-9 fields) for dosimetric comparison. The target area received three dose levels (70, 60, and 54 Gy) in 33 fractions using simultaneous integrated boosts technique. The Philips Pinnacle Planning System 9.0 was adopted to design VMAT, using SmartArc as the planning algorithm. For a fair comparison, the planning target volume (PTV) coverage of the 3 plans was normalized to the same level. Dosimetric comparisons between VMAT, HT, and IMRT plans were analyzed to evaluate (1) coverage, homogeneity, and conformity of PTV, (2) sparing of OARs, (3) delivery time, and (4) monitor units (MUs). Results: The VMAT, HT, and IMRT plans had similar PTV coverage with an average of 96%. There was no significant difference between VMAT and HT in homogeneity, while the homogeneity indices of VMAT (1.06) and HT (1.06) were better than IMRT plans (1.07, p < 0.05). HT plans provided a better conformity index (1.17) than VMAT (1.28, p = 0.01) and IMRT (1.36, p = 0.02). When compared with IMRT, VMAT and HT had a better sparing effect on brain stem and spinal cord (p < 0.05). The effect of parotid sparing was similar between VMAT (mean = 26.3 Gy) and HT (mean = 27.5 Gy), but better than IMRT (mean = 31.3 Gy, p < 0.01). The delivery time per fraction for VMAT (5.7 min) were much lower than for HT (9.5 min, p < 0.01) and IMRT (9.2 min, p < 0.01). Conclusions: Our results indicate that VMAT provides better sparing of normal tissue, homogeneity, and conformity than IMRT, and shorter delivery time than HT.

    KW - Intensity-modulated radiation therapy

    KW - Nasopharyngeal carcinoma

    KW - TomoTherapy

    KW - Volumetric modulated arc therapy

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84867069998&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84867069998&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1016/j.radonc.2011.11.017

    DO - 10.1016/j.radonc.2011.11.017

    M3 - Article

    C2 - 22236614

    AN - SCOPUS:84867069998

    VL - 104

    SP - 324

    EP - 330

    JO - Radiotherapy and Oncology

    JF - Radiotherapy and Oncology

    SN - 0167-8140

    IS - 3

    ER -