PURPOSE: To compare a quasi-volumetric modulated arc therapy (qVMAT) with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for the treatment of high-grade gliomas. The qVMAT technique is a fast method of radiation therapy in which multiple equispaced beams analogous to those in rotation therapy are radiated in succession. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study included 12 patients with a planning target volume (PTV) that overlapped at least one organ at risk (OAR). 3D-CRT was planned using 2-3 non-coplanar beams, whereby the field-in-field technique (FIF) was used to divide each field into 1-3 subfields to shield the OAR. The qVMAT strategy was planned with 15 equispaced beams and IMRT was planned using 9 beams with a total of 80 segments. Inverse planning for qVMAT and IMRT was performed by direct machine parameter optimization (DMPO) to deliver a homogenous dose distribution of 60 Gy within the PTV and simultaneously limit the dose received by the OARs to the recommended values. Finally, the effect of introducing a maximum dose objective (max. dose < 54 Gy) for a virtual OAR in the form of a 0.5 cm ring around the PTV was investigated. RESULTS: The qVMAT method gave rise to significantly improved PTV95% and conformity index (CI) values in comparison to 3D-CRT (PTV95% = 90.7 % vs. 82.0 %; CI = 0.79 vs. 0.74, respectively). A further improvement was achieved by IMRT (PTV95% = 94.4 %, CI = 0.78). In qVMAT and IMRT, the addition of a 0.5 cm ring around the PTV produced a significant increase in CI (0.87 and 0.88, respectively), but dosage homogeneity within the PTV was considerably reduced (PTV95% = 88.5 % and 92.3 %, respectively). The time required for qVMAT dose delivery was similar to that required using 3D-CRT. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that qVMAT should be preferred to 3D-CRT for the treatment of high-grade gliomas. The qVMAT method could be applied in hospitals, for example, which have limited departmental resources and are not equipped with systems capable of VMAT delivery.
PURPOSE: To compare a quasi-volumetric modulated arc therapy (qVMAT) with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for the treatment of high-grade gliomas. The qVMAT technique is a fast method of radiation therapy in which multiple equispaced beams analogous to those in rotation therapy are radiated in succession. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study included 12 patients with a planning target volume (PTV) that overlapped at least one organ at risk (OAR). 3D-CRT was planned using 2-3 non-coplanar beams, whereby the field-in-field technique (FIF) was used to divide each field into 1-3 subfields to shield the OAR. The qVMAT strategy was planned with 15 equispaced beams and IMRT was planned using 9 beams with a total of 80 segments. Inverse planning for qVMAT and IMRT was performed by direct machine parameter optimization (DMPO) to deliver a homogenous dose distribution of 60 Gy within the PTV and simultaneously limit the dose received by the OARs to the recommended values. Finally, the effect of introducing a maximum dose objective (max. dose < 54 Gy) for a virtual OAR in the form of a 0.5 cm ring around the PTV was investigated. RESULTS: The qVMAT method gave rise to significantly improved PTV95% and conformity index (CI) values in comparison to 3D-CRT (PTV95% = 90.7 % vs. 82.0 %; CI = 0.79 vs. 0.74, respectively). A further improvement was achieved by IMRT (PTV95% = 94.4 %, CI = 0.78). In qVMAT and IMRT, the addition of a 0.5 cm ring around the PTV produced a significant increase in CI (0.87 and 0.88, respectively), but dosage homogeneity within the PTV was considerably reduced (PTV95% = 88.5 % and 92.3 %, respectively). The time required for qVMAT dose delivery was similar to that required using 3D-CRT. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that qVMAT should be preferred to 3D-CRT for the treatment of high-grade gliomas. The qVMAT method could be applied in hospitals, for example, which have limited departmental resources and are not equipped with systems capable of VMAT delivery.
Authors: Robert Cardinale; Minhee Won; Ali Choucair; Michael Gillin; Arnab Chakravarti; Christopher Schultz; Luis Souhami; Allan Chen; Huong Pham; Minesh Mehta Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-06-05 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ulrich Hermanto; Erik K Frija; Mingfwu J Lii; Eric L Chang; Anita Mahajan; Shiao Y Woo Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-01-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ashwatha Narayana; Josh Yamada; Sean Berry; Priti Shah; Margie Hunt; Philip H Gutin; Steven A Leibel Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Yvonne Dzierma; Frank G Nuesken; Stephanie Kremp; Jan Palm; Norbert P Licht; Christian Rübe Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-04-29 Impact factor: 3.621