Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T07:53:13.682Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Volumetric modulated arc therapy: a dosimetric comparison with dynamic IMRT and step-and-shoot IMRT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2019

Payal Raina Open the ORCID record for Payal Raina [Opens in a new window] ,
Sudha Singh ,
Rajanigandha Tudu ,
Rashmi Singh  and
Anup Kumar
Payal Raina*
Affiliation:
Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Bariatu, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India
Sudha Singh
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Ranchi University, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India
Rajanigandha Tudu
Affiliation:
Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Bariatu, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India
Rashmi Singh
Affiliation:
Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Bariatu, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India
Anup Kumar
Affiliation:
Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Bariatu, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India
*
Author for correspondence: Payal Raina, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Bariatu, Ranchi, Jharkhand 834009, India. E-mail: payalraina2008@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aim:

The aim of this study was to compare volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with dynamic intensity-modulated radiation therapy (dIMRT) and step-and-shoot IMRT (ssIMRT) for different treatment sites.

Materials and methods:

Twelve patients were selected for the planning comparison study. This included three head and neck, three brain, three rectal and three cervical cancer patients. Total dose of 50 Gy was given for all the plans. Plans were done for Elekta synergy with Monaco treatment planning system. All plans were generated with 6 MV photons beam. Plan evaluation was based on the ability to meet the dose volume histogram, dose homogeneity index, conformity index and radiation delivery time, and monitor unit needs to deliver the prescribed dose.

Results:

The VMAT and dIMRT plans achieved the better conformity (CI98% = 0·965 ± 0·023) and (CI98% = 0·939 ± 0·01), respectively, while ssIMRT plans were slightly inferior (CI98% = 0·901 ± 0·038). The inhomogeneity in the planning target volume (PTV) was highest with ssIMRT with HI equal to 0·097 ± 0·015 when compared to VMAT with HI equal to 0·092 ± 0·0369 and 0·095 ± 0·023 with dIMRT. The integral dose is found to be inferior with VMAT 105·31 ± 53·6 (Gy L) when compared with dIMRT 110·75 ± 52·9 (Gy L) and ssIMRT 115 38 ± 55·1(Gy L). All the techniques respected the planning objective for all organs at risk. The delivery time per fraction for VMAT was much lower than dIMRT and ssIMRT.

Findings:

Our results indicate that dIMRT and VMAT provide better sparing of normal tissue, homogeneity and conformity than ssIMRT with reduced treatment delivery time.

Keywords

conformity indexdynamic IMRThomogeneity indexsteep-and-shoot IMRTVMAT
Type
Technical Note
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , December 2020 , pp. 393 - 398
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bortfeld, T. IMRT: a review and preview. Phys Med Biol 2006; 51: R363–R379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Purdy, A. Dose to normal tissues outside the radiation therapy patient’s treated volume: a review of different radiation therapy techniques. Health Phys 2008; 95: 666–676.Google ScholarPubMed
Cash, C J. Changing paradigms: intensity modulated radiation therapy. Semin Oncol Nurs 2006; 22: 242–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spirou, S V, Chui, C S. Generation of arbitrary intensity profiles by dynamic jaws or multileaf collimators. Med Phys 1994; 21: 1031–1041 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Dyk, J, Smathers, J B. The modern technology of radiation oncology: a compendium for medical physicists and radiation oncologists. Med Phys 2000; 27: 626–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, S. The physical basis of IMRT and inverse planning. Br J Radiol 2003; 76: 678–689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cho, B. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy: a review with a physics perspective. Radiat Oncol J 2018; 36(1): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elith, C, Dempsey, S E, Findlay, N, Warren-Forward, H M. An introduction to the intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques, tomotherapy, and VMAT. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci 2011; 42: 37–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rehman, J, Ahmad, N, Khalid, M et al. Intensity modulated radiation therapy: a review of current practice and future outlooks. J Radiat Res Appl Sci 2018; 11(4): 361–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, J, Bortfeld, T, Dorschel, B, Schlegel, W. Dynamic X-ray compensation for conformal radiotherapy by means of multileaf collimation. Radiother Oncol 1994; 32: 163–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brahme, A. Optimization of stationary and moving beam radiation therapy techniques. Radiother Oncol 1988; 12: 129–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyer, A L, Desobry, G E, Wells, N H. Potential and limitations of invariant kernel conformal therapy. Med Phys 1991; 18: 703–712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adler, J R, Murphy, M J, Chang, S D, Hancock, S L. Image-guided robotic radiosurgery. Neurosurgery 1999; 44: 1299–1306.Google ScholarPubMed
Murphy, M J, Cox, R S. The accuracy of dose localization for an image-guided frameless radiosurgery system. Med Phys 1996; 23: 2043–2049.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adler, J R, Cox, R S. Preliminary clinical experience with the Cyberknife: image-guided stereotactic radiosurgery. Radiosurgery 1995 Karger 1996; 1: 316–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, C X. Intensity modulated arc therapy with dynamic multileaf collimation: an alternative to tomotherapy. Phys Med Biol 1995; 40: 1435–1449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Otto, K. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc. Med Phys 2008; 35: 310–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, M, Park, S Y, Shin, D, et al. A new homogeneity index based on statistical analysis of the dose-volume histrogram. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2007; 8: 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feuvtet, L, Noël, G, Mazeron, JJ, Bey, P. Conformity index: a review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 64: 333–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ślosarek, K, Osewski, W, Grządziel, A, et al. Integral dose: comparison between four techniques for prostate radiotherapy. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2015; 20: 99–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanetti, E, Clivio, A, Nicolini, G, et al. Volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy for carcinomas of the oro-pharynx, hypo-pharynx and larynx: a treatment planning comparison with fixed field IMRT. Radiother Oncol 2009; 92: 111–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cozzi, L, Dinshaw, K A, Shrivastava, S K, et al. A treatment planning study comparing volumetric arc modulation with RapidArc and fixed field IMRT for cervix uteri radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2008; 89: 180–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canyilmaz, E, Uslu, G D H, Colak, F, et al. Comparison of dose distributions hippocampus in high grade gliomas irradiation with linac-based IMRT and volumetric arc therapy: a dosimetric study. SpringerPlus 2015; 4: 114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Studenski, M T, Bar-Ad, V, Siglin, J, et al. Clinical experience transitioning from IMRT to VMAT for head and neck cancer. Med Dosim 2013; 38: 171–175 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, E J, Wuu, C S. Radiation-induced second cancers: the impact of 3D-CRT and IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 56: 83–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fogliata, A, Clivio, A, Nicolini, G, Vanetti, E, Cozzi, L. Intensity modulation with photons for benign intracranial tumours: a planning comparison of volumetric single arc, helical arc and fixed gantry techniques. Radiother Oncol 2008; 89:254–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed