PURPOSE: 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. METHODS AND MATERIALS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
PURPOSE: 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. METHODS AND MATERIALS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Authors: T R Mackie; T Holmes; S Swerdloff; P Reckwerdt; J O Deasy; J Yang; B Paliwal; T Kinsella Journal: Med Phys Date: 1993 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Daliang Cao; Timothy W Holmes; Muhammad K N Afghan; David M Shepard Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Martha M Matuszak; Jennifer M Steers; Troy Long; Daniel L McShan; Benedick A Fraass; H Edwin Romeijn; Randall K Ten Haken Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Hans Stabenau; Linda Rivera; Ellen Yorke; Jie Yang; Renzhi Lu; Richard J Radke; Andrew Jackson Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Xiaofang Dai; Yingchao Zhao; Zhiwen Liang; Meera Dassarath; Lu Wang; Lihui Jin; Lili Chen; James Dong; Robert A Price; C-M Ma Journal: Phys Med Date: 2014-10-03 Impact factor: 2.685