scholarly journals A comparative dosimetric study of volumetric-modulated arc therapy vs. fixed field intensity-modulated radiotherapy in postoperative irradiation of stage IB-IIA high-risk cervical cancer

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 959-964 ◽  
Author(s):  
LILI QIAO ◽  
JIAN CHENG ◽  
NING LIANG ◽  
JIAN XIE ◽  
HUI LUO ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Field Intensity ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ◽  
Fixed Field ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Dosimetric Study ◽  
Postoperative Irradiation

scholarly journals A Dosimetric Study of Volumetric Arc Modulation with RapidArc Versus Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy inCervical Cancer Patients

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brijesh Goswami ◽  
Rakesh Kumar Jain ◽  
Suresh Yadav ◽  
Sunil Kumar ◽  
Saji Oommen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Treatment Time ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ◽  
Sliding Window ◽  
Fixed Field ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Dosimetric Study ◽  
Radiotherapy Treatment

Introduction: The method of radiotherapy has moved away from two-dimensional and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy towards Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) for advanced carcinomas. VMAT treatments often result in significant clinical advantage, particularly when concave dose distributions are required as is often the situation since these tumours are in close proximity to several critical structures. Aim:To investigate the potential clinical role of volumetric arc therapy on cervical cancer patients and its comparison with fixed-field Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) was used as a benchmark. Materials and Methods: Retrospectively, radiotherapy treatment plans of fifteen cervical cancer patients were selected for this study. These patients were previously treated with sliding window IMRT techniques during January 2020 to November 2020. For dosimetric comparison of sliding window IMRT techniques with RapidArc, a new set of plans were created using VMAT/RapidArc technique. For each patient two plans were generated and in this way total 30 plans were analysed. The prescription dose to Planning Target Volume (PTV) was 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions (1.8Gy/fraction) for the 6 MV photon beam. Comparison of each plan done on the basis of Organs At Risk (OARs) sparing, coverage index (C), Conformity Index (CI), Homogeneity Index (HI), dose Gradient Index (GI), and Unified Dosimetry Index (UDI). This study utilised UDI scoring for evaluation and comparison of RapidArc and IMRT plans. Treatment Time (TT) for patient comfort and the number of Monitor Units (MUs) for long-term side-effects was also taken into consideration. A paired two-tailed t-test was executed for the dosimetric study of volumetric arc modulation with RapidArc and its comparison with the IMRT technique in the radiotherapy treatment of cervical cancer patients. All the collected data was analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0. The (p-value<0.05) was contemplated for the level of statistical significance. Results: Comparable target coverage and better sparing of OARs were achieved with the RapidArc technique in comparison to IMRT. As was evident with results of present study, the values of CI (1.55±0.07), HI (1.07±0.07), GI (0.98±0.01) and UDI (1.25±0.11) of RapidArc technique showed significant difference from respective values of IMRT Technique (1.67±0.06, 1.10±0.06, 0.96±0.01 and 1.38±0.13). Values of MUs (1560.47±52.16) and treatment time (3.71±0.73 mins) were significantlly high in IMRT technique as compared to RapidArc technique (542.33±51.09 and 2.39±0.35 mins respectively). Conclusion: From this study, it is clear that a similar planning goal can be achieved by RapidArc in comparison to fixed-field IMRT with less normal organ toxicity. RapidArc is a faster and precise treatment technique. The most significant change comes to see in the number of MUs and TT, which is much lesser in RapidArc.

Which simultaneous-integrated boost (SIB) intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) technique is dosimetrically superior in the treatment of breast cancer; volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) or fixed field (ff) IMRT?

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 272-279
Author(s):  
Steven B. D. Murphy ◽  
Heather Drury-Smith
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ◽  
Breath Hold ◽  
Hybrid Technique ◽  
Fixed Field ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Concomitant Boost ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Integrated Boost

AbstractBackground and purposeTo determine which concomitant boost technique is dosimetrically superior in the treatment of breast cancer; volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) or fixed field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (ff-IMRT).Materials and methodsIn total, 30 breast patients were re-planned with both VMAT and fixed field concomitant boost intensity-modulated radiotherapy techniques. A hybrid technique was used delivering 80% of the dose through tangential beams and 20% through an integrated boost. A two-tailed t-test sample for means was used to compare the dosimetric differences between the techniques.ResultsMaximum dose was statistically lower for VMAT; 103·2 versus 103·7% for ff-IMRT along with statistically lower V2 Gy doses to the contralateral lung (0·7 versus 1·6%) and heart for both left- (19·0%/22·6%), and right- (5·5%/8·8%) sided patients, respectively. ff-IMRT boasted significantly lower ipsilateral lung V20, V18 and V10 Gy (7·9/8·6/13·1 versus 8·1/8·8/13·4%) than VMAT, respectively. No differences were found with minimum coverage, mean dose and V5 Gy to all organs at risk (OARs).ConclusionVMAT and ff-IMRT techniques demonstrate excellent target coverage and OAR sparing facilitated by the hybrid planning technique and deep inspiration breath hold. There is no obvious dosimetrically superior option between the two techniques. Reduced treatment times with VMAT make it more desirable to implement clinically.

scholarly journals The Dosimetric and Clinical Comparison between Helical Tomotherapy and Fixed-Field Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy in Radical Irradiation for Cervical Cancer

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mingfang Guo ◽  
Xueqi Ran ◽  
Dongling Zou ◽  
Na Zhang ◽  
Xianfeng Liu
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Field Intensity ◽  
Helical Tomotherapy ◽  
Organs At Risk ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ◽  
Conformity Index ◽  
Radical Radiotherapy ◽  
Fixed Field ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Clinical Complications

Abstract Backgroud: To evaluate the dosimetric parameters, clinical complications, and efficacy of helical tomotherapy(HT) and fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (f-IMRT) in radical radiotherapy for cervical cancer.Methods: Between November 2016 and December 2018, 77 cervical cancer patients in radical irradiation were enrolled, 38 patients undergoing treatment with HT and 39 with f-IMRT. The dosimetry parameters, clinical complications, and efficacy were compared. Results: The HT plans had superior homogeneity index(HI) , conformity index(CI) (P=0.000),and resulted in a reduction in the dosimetry parameters of organs at risk(OARs) (P<0.05) except the V10 of small intestine (P=0.682).The incidence of myelosuppression showed no significant differences(P=0.265).The patients with HT had no radioactive cystitis, grade 2 or above rectal complication and acute bladder complication. The complete remission(CR) rates ,effective rates(CR+PR) and local control rates of two years were 81.58%,100% and 97.37%.Conclusion: The HT plans showed advantages in dosimetry, and provided more superior clinical outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document