PURPOSE: To investigate the roles of volumetric modulated arc therapy with SmartArc (VMAT-S), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and helical tomotherapy (HT) for oropharyngeal cancer using a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) approach. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eight patients treated with IMRT were selected at random. Plans were computed for both IMRT and VMAT-S (using Pinnacle TPS for an Elekta Infinity linac) along with HT. A three-dose level prescription was used to deliver 70 Gy, 63 Gy, and 58.1 Gy to regions of macroscopic, microscopic high-risk, and microscopic low-risk disease, respectively. All doses were given in 35 fractions. Comparisons were performed on dose-volume histogram data, monitor units per fraction (MU/fx), and delivery time. RESULTS: VMAT-S target coverage was close to that achieved by IMRT, but inferior to HT. The conformity and homogeneity within the PTV were improved for HT over all strategies. Sparing of the organs at risk (OAR) was achieved with all modalities. VMAT-S (along with HT) shortened delivery time (mean, -38%) and reduced MU/fx (mean, -28%) compared with IMRT. CONCLUSION: VMAT-S represents an attractive solution because of the shorter delivery time and the lower number of MU/fx compared with IMRT. However, in this complex clinical setting, current VMAT-S does not appear to provide any distinct advantage compared with helical tomotherapy.
PURPOSE: To investigate the roles of volumetric modulated arc therapy with SmartArc (VMAT-S), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and helical tomotherapy (HT) for oropharyngeal cancer using a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) approach. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eight patients treated with IMRT were selected at random. Plans were computed for both IMRT and VMAT-S (using Pinnacle TPS for an Elekta Infinity linac) along with HT. A three-dose level prescription was used to deliver 70 Gy, 63 Gy, and 58.1 Gy to regions of macroscopic, microscopic high-risk, and microscopic low-risk disease, respectively. All doses were given in 35 fractions. Comparisons were performed on dose-volume histogram data, monitor units per fraction (MU/fx), and delivery time. RESULTS:VMAT-S target coverage was close to that achieved by IMRT, but inferior to HT. The conformity and homogeneity within the PTV were improved for HT over all strategies. Sparing of the organs at risk (OAR) was achieved with all modalities. VMAT-S (along with HT) shortened delivery time (mean, -38%) and reduced MU/fx (mean, -28%) compared with IMRT. CONCLUSION:VMAT-S represents an attractive solution because of the shorter delivery time and the lower number of MU/fx compared with IMRT. However, in this complex clinical setting, current VMAT-S does not appear to provide any distinct advantage compared with helical tomotherapy.
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: Dirk Van Gestel; Dirk Verellen; Lien Van De Voorde; Bie de Ost; Geert De Kerf; Olivier Vanderveken; Carl Van Laer; Danielle Van den Weyngaert; Jan B Vermorken; Vincent Gregoire Journal: Oncologist Date: 2013-05-30
Authors: Emily Neubauer; Lei Dong; David S Followill; Adam S Garden; Laurence E Court; R Allen White; Stephen F Kry Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2012-02-08 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Andrea Holt; Dirk Van Gestel; Mark P Arends; Erik W Korevaar; Danny Schuring; Martina C Kunze-Busch; Rob Jw Louwe; Corine van Vliet-Vroegindeweij Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2013-01-31 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Dirk Van Gestel; Corine van Vliet-Vroegindeweij; Frank Van den Heuvel; Wouter Crijns; Ann Coelmont; Bie De Ost; Andrea Holt; Emmy Lamers; Yasmyne Geussens; Sandra Nuyts; Danielle Van den Weyngaert; Tim Van den Wyngaert; Jan B Vermorken; Vincent Gregoire Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2013-02-20 Impact factor: 3.481