Literature DB >> 23973017

Comparison of whole-field simultaneous integrated boost VMAT and IMRT in the treatment of nasopharyngeal cancer.

Xiance Jin1, Jinling Yi, Yongqiang Zhou, Huawei Yan, Ce Han, Congying Xie.   

Abstract

To study the feasibility of using volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to deliver whole-field simultaneous integrated boost (WF-SIB) to treat patients with nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC). WF-SIB intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans, one-arc WF-SIB VMAT plans, and two-arc WF-SIB VMAT plans were generated with identical objective functions for 8 patients with NPC of various stages. Isodose distributions and dose-volume histograms were evaluated. Dosimetric and biological quality indices of clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk (OARs) were calculated to study the optimization capability of these 3 modalities in the treatment of patients with NPC. The optimization time, delivery time, required monitor units (MUs), and delivery accuracy were also compared to investigate the feasibility of these 3 modalities. There was no significant difference (p = 0.92) in target coverage (TC) between WF-SIB IMRT (99.00 ± 0.79) and two-arc WF-SIB VMAT (97.98 ± 1.29). However, both had higher TC than one-arc VMAT plans (89.92 ± 6.32, p < 0.01). IMRT demonstrated the best protection of the spinal cord, whereas two-arc VMAT showed the minimum Dmax to OARs. No other significant differences were observed among these 3 modalities on CTV coverage and OAR sparing. The delivery and MU efficiency of one-arc and two-arc WF-SIB VMAT were greatly improved compared with WF-SIB IMRT. The optimization time of one-arc and two-arc WF-SIB VMAT plans were 5 and 10 times greater than that of WF-SIB IMRT, respectively. The delivery accuracy of WF-SIB VMAT was not affected by the increased freedom. For patients with NPC, one-arc WF-SIB VMAT might not be able to achieve sufficient TC, whereas two-arc WF-SIB VMAT was able to achieve reasonable TC. No significant advantage on OAR protection was demonstrated by VMAT compared with IMRT. WF-SIB VMAT has significantly shorter delivery times, but WF-SIB IMRT may still be the first treatment choice for patients with NPC.
© 2013 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists.

Entities:  

Keywords:  IMRT; Nasopharyngeal cancer; Simultaneous integrated boost; VMAT; Whole field

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23973017     DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2013.05.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Dosim        ISSN: 1873-4022            Impact factor:   1.482


  17 in total

1.  Correlation between gamma index passing rate and clinical dosimetric difference for pre-treatment 2D and 3D volumetric modulated arc therapy dosimetric verification.

Authors:  X Jin; H Yan; C Han; Y Zhou; J Yi; C Xie
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-12-10       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Comparison of Radiation-Induced Secondary Malignancy Risk Between Sequential and Simultaneous Integrated Boost for the Treatment of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy versus Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy.

Authors:  Emel Haciislamoglu; Yunus Cinar; Mehmet Eren; Emine Canyilmaz; Fatih Gurcan; Lasif Serdar; Adnan Yoney
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2020-04-08       Impact factor: 3.989

3.  Is volumetric modulated arc therapy with constant dose rate a valid option in radiation therapy for head and neck cancer patients?

Authors:  Annamaria Didona; Valentina Lancellotta; Claudio Zucchetti; Bianca Moira Panizza; Alessandro Frattegiani; Martina Iacco; Anna Concetta Di Pilato; Simonetta Saldi; Cynthia Aristei
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2018-03-19

4.  Feasibility of constant dose rate VMAT in the treatment of nasopharyngeal cancer patients.

Authors:  Wenliang Yu; Haijiao Shang; Congying Xie; Ce Han; Jinling Yi; Yongqiang Zhou; Xiance Jin
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2014-11-04       Impact factor: 3.481

5.  A hybrid IMRT/VMAT technique for the treatment of nasopharyngeal cancer.

Authors:  Nan Zhao; Ruijie Yang; Yuliang Jiang; Suqing Tian; Fuxin Guo; Junjie Wang
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-01-21       Impact factor: 3.411

6.  Dosimetric advantage of volumetric modulated arc therapy in the treatment of intraocular cancer.

Authors:  Zhenxiang Deng; Lanxiao Shen; Xiaomin Zheng; Yongqiang Zhou; Jinling Yi; Ce Han; Congying Xie; Xiance Jin
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2017-05-10       Impact factor: 3.481

7.  Comparative study on dosimetry of VMAT and IMRT in assisted radiotherapy after radical resection of rectal cancer.

Authors:  Jianguo Shi; Fujun Yang; Xiangbai Ju; Yudong Huang; Fenge Jiang
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2017-03-10       Impact factor: 2.967

8.  CBCT-based volumetric and dosimetric variation evaluation of volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy in the treatment of nasopharyngeal cancer patients.

Authors:  Xiance Jin; Weigang Hu; Haijiao Shang; Ce Han; Jinling Yi; Yongqiang Zhou; Congying Xie
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2013-12-01       Impact factor: 3.481

9.  A modified VMAT adaptive radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal cancer patients based on CT-CT image fusion.

Authors:  Xiance Jin; Ce Han; Yongqiang Zhou; Jinling Yi; Huawei Yan; Congying Xie
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2013-11-27       Impact factor: 3.481

10.  Multidimensional correlation among plan complexity, quality and deliverability parameters for volumetric-modulated arc therapy using canonical correlation analysis.

Authors:  Lanxiao Shen; Shan Chen; Xiaoyang Zhu; Ce Han; Xiaomin Zheng; Zhenxiang Deng; Yongqiang Zhou; Changfei Gong; Congying Xie; Xiance Jin
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 2.724

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.