A study of the dosimetric characteristics between different fixed-field IMRT and VMAT in early-stage primary
Li-Ming Xu1, Ming-Lei Kang2, Bo Jiang3
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin 300060, China; Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 10021, China.
Abstract:
This analysis was designed to compare dosimetric parameters among different fixed-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) solutions and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to identify which can achieve the lowest risk of organs at risk (OARs) and treatment delivery efficiently. A total of 16 patients (8 male and 8 female) with early-stage primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) were enrolled with planned gross tumor volume (PGTV) 45 Gy and planning target volume (PTV) 40 Gy. Four different plans were generated: 5-, 7, 9-field IMRT, and VMAT. The dose distributions for PGTV and PTV OARs (lungs, left ventricle, heart, thyroid gland, and breasts) were compared. The monitor units (MUs) and treatment delivery time were also evaluated. Mean conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) for PGTV in 5F-, 7F-, 9F-IMRT, and VMAT were 1.01 and 1.10, 1.01 and 1.10, 1.01 and 1.10, and 1.01 and 1.11 (p = 0.963 and 0.843), whereas these 2 indices for PTV were 1.04 and 1.22, 1.03 and 1.19, 1.03 and 1.17, and 1.08 and 1.14 (p = 0.964 and 0.969), respectively. Dmean (Gy), V4 (%), D50 (Gy), and D80 (Gy) to the left and right breasts increased by 0.7 Gy and 0.1 Gy, 6.8% and 7.7%, 0.9 Gy and 1.7 Gy, and 1.0 Gy and 1.5 Gy in VMAT, respectively. The 9-beam IMRT plan had the highest MUs (25,762.4 MUs) and the longest treatment delivery time (10.7 minutes); whereas, the VMAT had the lowest MUs (13,345.0) and the shortest treatment delivery time (5.9 minutes). Seven- and 9-field IMRT and VMAT provide improved tumor coverage compared with 5F-IMRT, whereas VMAT shows higher treatment delivery efficiency than IMRT technique. Seven- and 9-field IMRT slightly reduce the low dose radiation exposure of breasts compared with VMAT technique. The 7- and 9-field IMRT and VMAT techniques both can be safely and efficiently delivered to patients with PMBCL.
