BACKGROUND: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) allows for improved sparing of organs at risk (OARs) in advanced pancreatic cancer. A planning study evaluated if volumetric modulated arc therapy (RapidArc [RA]) could be used as an alternative to IMRT in such cases. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In ten patients, five-field IMRT (5f-IMRT) plans with fixed gantry positions were compared to RA plans using similar constraints for planning target volume (PTV) and OARs. PTV coverage, conformity indices (CI), and OAR doses were compared. One patient was treated using RA and calculated dose distributions were measured in coronal planes in a solid-water phantom. RESULTS: RA plans showed superior mean CI of 1.09 +/- 0.02 (+/- 1 SD [standard deviation]) versus 1.20 +/- 0.10 in 5f-IMRT (p = 0.003). Both techniques achieved similar sparing of the right kidney, but RA significantly reduced left kidney doses with V(15) of 7.2% +/- 5.3% and 15.9% +/- 11.1%, respectively; p = 0.02. RA modestly decreased mean doses to liver (13.8 vs. 15.1 Gy; p = 0.003), stomach (16.7 vs. 17.9 Gy; p = 0.017), small bowel (19.8 vs. 22.1 Gy; p < 0.001), and duodenum (38.8 vs. 41.9 Gy; p = 0.004). Film dosimetry revealed excellent agreement between calculated and measured dose distributions. The delivery time for RA was < 3 min. CONCLUSION: RA planning achieved superior CI for pancreatic tumors compared to 5f-IMRT, and modestly reduced OAR doses. Fast treatment delivery using RA may decrease the risk of intrafractional organ motion.
BACKGROUND: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) allows for improved sparing of organs at risk (OARs) in advanced pancreatic cancer. A planning study evaluated if volumetric modulated arc therapy (RapidArc [RA]) could be used as an alternative to IMRT in such cases. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In ten patients, five-field IMRT (5f-IMRT) plans with fixed gantry positions were compared to RA plans using similar constraints for planning target volume (PTV) and OARs. PTV coverage, conformity indices (CI), and OAR doses were compared. One patient was treated using RA and calculated dose distributions were measured in coronal planes in a solid-water phantom. RESULTS:RA plans showed superior mean CI of 1.09 +/- 0.02 (+/- 1 SD [standard deviation]) versus 1.20 +/- 0.10 in 5f-IMRT (p = 0.003). Both techniques achieved similar sparing of the right kidney, but RA significantly reduced left kidney doses with V(15) of 7.2% +/- 5.3% and 15.9% +/- 11.1%, respectively; p = 0.02. RA modestly decreased mean doses to liver (13.8 vs. 15.1 Gy; p = 0.003), stomach (16.7 vs. 17.9 Gy; p = 0.017), small bowel (19.8 vs. 22.1 Gy; p < 0.001), and duodenum (38.8 vs. 41.9 Gy; p = 0.004). Film dosimetry revealed excellent agreement between calculated and measured dose distributions. The delivery time for RA was < 3 min. CONCLUSION:RA planning achieved superior CI for pancreatic tumors compared to 5f-IMRT, and modestly reduced OAR doses. Fast treatment delivery using RA may decrease the risk of intrafractional organ motion.
Authors: Kathy L Baglan; Robert C Frazier; Di Yan; Raywin R Huang; Alvaro A Martinez; John M Robertson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Edgar Ben-Josef; Anthony F Shields; Ulka Vaishampayan; Vainutis Vaitkevicius; Basil F El-Rayes; Patrick McDermott; Jay Burmeister; Todd Bossenberger; Philip A Philip Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michael T Milano; Steven J Chmura; Michael C Garofalo; Carla Rash; John C Roeske; Phillip P Connell; Oh-Hoon Kwon; Ashesh B Jani; Ruth Heimann Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jerome C Landry; Gary Y Yang; Joseph Y Ting; Charles A Staley; William Torres; Natia Esiashvili; Lawrence W Davis Journal: Med Dosim Date: 2002 Impact factor: 1.482
Authors: Mary Feng; James M Balter; Daniel Normolle; Saroja Adusumilli; Yue Cao; Thomas L Chenevert; Edgar Ben-Josef Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-04-22 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Saila P Kauhanen; Gaber Komar; Marko P Seppänen; Kirsti I Dean; Heikki R Minn; Sami A Kajander; Irina Rinta-Kiikka; Kalle Alanen; Ronald J Borra; Pauli A Puolakkainen; Pirjo Nuutila; Jari T Ovaska Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: S Subramaniam; S Thirumalaiswamy; C Srinivas; G A Gandhi; M Kathirvel; K K Kumar; S Mallik; M Babaiah; Y Pawar; A Clivio; A Fogliata; P Mancosu; G Nicolini; E Vanetti; L Cozzi Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-03-10 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: G Z Gong; Y Yin; L G Xing; Y J Guo; T Liu; J Chen; J Lu; C Ma; T Sun; T Bai; G Zhang; R Wang Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-02-08 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Rachit Kumar; Aaron T Wild; Mark A Ziegler; Ted K Hooker; Samson D Dah; Phuoc T Tran; Jun Kang; Koren Smith; Jing Zeng; Timothy M Pawlik; Erik Tryggestad; Eric Ford; Joseph M Herman Journal: Med Dosim Date: 2013-03-27 Impact factor: 1.482
Authors: F Alongi; M Bignardi; I Garassino; S Pentimalli; R Cavina; P Mancosu; G Reggiori; A Poletti; D Ferrari; P Foa; A Bigoni; A Dragonetti; P Salvatori; O Spahiu; A Fogliata; L Cozzi; A Santoro; M Scorsetti Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2011-12-24 Impact factor: 3.621