Simon D Fung-Kee-Fung1, Rachel Hackett, Lee Hales, Graham Warren, Anurag K Singh. 1. Simon D Fung-Kee-Fung, Rachel Hackett, Lee Hales, Graham Warren, Anurag K Singh, Department of Radiation Medicine, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, University at Buffalo School of Medicine, Elm and Carlton Streets, Buffalo, NY 14214, United States.
Abstract
AIM: To prospectively compare volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and conventional intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in coverage of planning target volumes and avoidance of multiple organs at risk (OARs) in patients undergoing definitive chemoradiotherapy for advanced (stage III or IV) squamous cell cancer of the head and neck. METHODS: Computed tomography scans of 20 patients with advanced tumors of the larynx, naso-, oro- and hypopharynx were prospectively planned using IMRT (7 field) and VMAT using two arcs. Calculated doses to planning target volume (PTV) and OAR were compared between IMRT and VMAT plans. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) were utilized to obtain calculated doses to PTV and OAR, including parotids, cochlea, spinal cord, brainstem, anterior tongue, pituitary and brachial plexus. DVH's for all structures were compared between IMRT and VMAT plans. In addition the plans were compared for dose conformity and homogeneity. The final treatment plan was chosen by the treating radiation oncologist. RESULTS: VMAT was chosen as the ultimate plan in 18 of 20 patients (90%) because the plans were thought to be otherwise clinically equivalent. The IMRT plan was chosen in 2 of 20 patients because the VMAT plan produced concentric irradiation of the cord which was not overcome even with an avoidance structure. For all patients, VMAT plans had a lower number of average monitor units on average (MU = 542.85) than IMRT plans (MU = 1612.58) (P < 0.001). Using the conformity index (CI), defined as the 95% isodose volume divided by the PTV, the IMRT plan was more conformal with a lower conformity index (CI = 1.61) than the VMAT plan (CI = 2.00) (P = 0.003). Dose homogeneity, as measured by average standard deviation of dose distribution over the PTV, was not different with VMAT (1.45 Gy) or IMRT (1.73 Gy) (P = 0.069). There were no differences in sparing organs at risk. CONCLUSION: In this prospective study, VMAT plans were chosen over IMRT 90% of the time. Compared to IMRT, VMAT plans used only one third of the MUs, had shorter treatment times, and similar sparing of OAR. Overall, VMAT provided similar dose homogeneity but less conformity in PTV irradiation compared to IMRT. This difference in conformity was not clinically significant.
AIM: To prospectively compare volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and conventional intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in coverage of planning target volumes and avoidance of multiple organs at risk (OARs) in patients undergoing definitive chemoradiotherapy for advanced (stage III or IV) squamous cell cancer of the head and neck. METHODS: Computed tomography scans of 20 patients with advanced tumors of the larynx, naso-, oro- and hypopharynx were prospectively planned using IMRT (7 field) and VMAT using two arcs. Calculated doses to planning target volume (PTV) and OAR were compared between IMRT and VMAT plans. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) were utilized to obtain calculated doses to PTV and OAR, including parotids, cochlea, spinal cord, brainstem, anterior tongue, pituitary and brachial plexus. DVH's for all structures were compared between IMRT and VMAT plans. In addition the plans were compared for dose conformity and homogeneity. The final treatment plan was chosen by the treating radiation oncologist. RESULTS: VMAT was chosen as the ultimate plan in 18 of 20 patients (90%) because the plans were thought to be otherwise clinically equivalent. The IMRT plan was chosen in 2 of 20 patients because the VMAT plan produced concentric irradiation of the cord which was not overcome even with an avoidance structure. For all patients, VMAT plans had a lower number of average monitor units on average (MU = 542.85) than IMRT plans (MU = 1612.58) (P < 0.001). Using the conformity index (CI), defined as the 95% isodose volume divided by the PTV, the IMRT plan was more conformal with a lower conformity index (CI = 1.61) than the VMAT plan (CI = 2.00) (P = 0.003). Dose homogeneity, as measured by average standard deviation of dose distribution over the PTV, was not different with VMAT (1.45 Gy) or IMRT (1.73 Gy) (P = 0.069). There were no differences in sparing organs at risk. CONCLUSION: In this prospective study, VMAT plans were chosen over IMRT 90% of the time. Compared to IMRT, VMAT plans used only one third of the MUs, had shorter treatment times, and similar sparing of OAR. Overall, VMAT provided similar dose homogeneity but less conformity in PTV irradiation compared to IMRT. This difference in conformity was not clinically significant.
Authors: Vincent Grégoire; Peter Levendag; Kian K Ang; Jacques Bernier; Marijel Braaksma; Volker Budach; Cliff Chao; Emmanuel Coche; Jay S Cooper; Guy Cosnard; Avraham Eisbruch; Samy El-Sayed; Bahman Emami; Cai Grau; Marc Hamoir; Nancy Lee; Philippe Maingon; Karin Muller; Hervé Reychler Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Melanie T M Davidson; Samuel J Blake; Deidre L Batchelar; Patrick Cheung; Katherine Mah Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-05-03 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: E Shaw; C Scott; L Souhami; R Dinapoli; R Kline; J Loeffler; N Farnan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Wilko F A R Verbakel; Johan P Cuijpers; Daan Hoffmans; Michael Bieker; Ben J Slotman; Suresh Senan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Luke H DeGraaff; Alexis J Platek; Austin J Iovoli; Kimberly E Wooten; Hassan Arshad; Vishal Gupta; Ryan P McSpadden; Moni Abraham Kuriakose; Wesley L Hicks; Mary E Platek; Anurag K Singh Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2019-07-30 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: Austin J Iovoli; Alexander Ostrowski; Charlotte I Rivers; Gregory M Hermann; Adrienne Groman; Austin Miller; Anurag K Singh Journal: J Altern Complement Med Date: 2020-01-27 Impact factor: 2.579
Authors: Fangyi Gu; Mark K Farrugia; William D Duncan; Yingdong Feng; Alan D Hutson; Nicolas F Schlecht; Elizabeth A Repasky; Marina P Antoch; Austin Miller; Alexis Platek; Mary E Platek; Austin J Iovoli; Anurag K Singh Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-02-25 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Alexis J Platek; Vijayvel Jayaprakash; Mihai Merzianu; Mary E Platek; David M Cohan; Wesley L Hicks; Sathiya P Marimuthu; Timothy B Winslow; Vishal Gupta; Hassan Arshad; Moni A Kuriakose; Shiva Dibaj; James R Marshall; Mary E Reid; Graham W Warren; Anurag K Singh Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2016-06-27 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Austin J Iovoli; Gregory M Hermann; Sung Jun Ma; Alexis J Platek; Mark K Farrugia; Edwin Yau; Kimberly E Wooten; Hassan Arshad; Vishal Gupta; Moni A Kuriakose; Wesley L Hicks; Anurag K Singh Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-06-01
Authors: Dieter Berwouts; Luiza Ana Maria Olteanu; Bruno Speleers; Frédéric Duprez; Indira Madani; Tom Vercauteren; Wilfried De Neve; Werner De Gersem Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2016-04-02 Impact factor: 3.481