B Huang1, Z Fang, Y Huang, P Lin, Z Chen. 1. 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Radiation therapy treatment planning was performed to compare the dosimetric difference between volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy (RapidArc™ v. 10; Varian® Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) and 7-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (7f-IMRT) in the definitive treatment of cervical cancer. METHODS: 13 patients with cervical cancer were enrolled in this study. Planning target volume (PTV) 50 and PTV60 were prescribed at a dose of 50 and 60 Gy in 28 fractions, respectively. The dose to the PTV60 was delivered as a simultaneous integrated boost to the pelvic lymph nodes. Owing to the mechanical limitation of the multileaf collimator in which the maximum displacement was limited to 15 cm, two types of RapidArc with different jaw width restrictions (15 and 20-23 cm) were investigated to evaluate their dosimetric differences. The RapidArc plan type with dosimetric superiority was then compared against the 7f-IMRT on the target coverage, sparing of the organs at risk (OARs), monitor units, treatment time and delivery accuracy to determine whether RapidArc is beneficial for the treatment of cervical cancer. RESULTS: The 15-cm jaw width restriction had better performance compared with the restrictions that were longer than 15 cm in the sparing of the OARs. The 15-cm RapidArc spared the OARs, that is, the bladder, rectum, small intestine, femoral heads and bones, and improved treatment efficiency compared with 7f-IMRT. Both techniques delivered a high quality-assurance passing rate (>90%) according to the Γ3mm,3% criterion. CONCLUSION: RapidArc with a 15-cm jaw width restriction spares the OARs and improves treatment efficiency in cervical cancer compared with 7f-IMRT. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study describes the dosimetric superiority of RapidArc with a 15-cm jaw width restriction and explores the feasibility of using RapidArc for the definitive treatment of cervical cancer.
OBJECTIVE: Radiation therapy treatment planning was performed to compare the dosimetric difference between volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy (RapidArc™ v. 10; Varian® Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) and 7-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (7f-IMRT) in the definitive treatment of cervical cancer. METHODS: 13 patients with cervical cancer were enrolled in this study. Planning target volume (PTV) 50 and PTV60 were prescribed at a dose of 50 and 60 Gy in 28 fractions, respectively. The dose to the PTV60 was delivered as a simultaneous integrated boost to the pelvic lymph nodes. Owing to the mechanical limitation of the multileaf collimator in which the maximum displacement was limited to 15 cm, two types of RapidArc with different jaw width restrictions (15 and 20-23 cm) were investigated to evaluate their dosimetric differences. The RapidArc plan type with dosimetric superiority was then compared against the 7f-IMRT on the target coverage, sparing of the organs at risk (OARs), monitor units, treatment time and delivery accuracy to determine whether RapidArc is beneficial for the treatment of cervical cancer. RESULTS: The 15-cm jaw width restriction had better performance compared with the restrictions that were longer than 15 cm in the sparing of the OARs. The 15-cm RapidArc spared the OARs, that is, the bladder, rectum, small intestine, femoral heads and bones, and improved treatment efficiency compared with 7f-IMRT. Both techniques delivered a high quality-assurance passing rate (>90%) according to the Γ3mm,3% criterion. CONCLUSION: RapidArc with a 15-cm jaw width restriction spares the OARs and improves treatment efficiency in cervical cancer compared with 7f-IMRT. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study describes the dosimetric superiority of RapidArc with a 15-cm jaw width restriction and explores the feasibility of using RapidArc for the definitive treatment of cervical cancer.
Authors: J C Roeske; A Lujan; J Rotmensch; S E Waggoner; D Yamada; A J Mundt Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Meegan Shepherd; Regina Bromley; Mark Stevens; Marita Morgia; Andrew Kneebone; George Hruby; John Atyeo; Thomas Eade Journal: J Med Radiat Sci Date: 2020-05-25
Authors: Hyunsoo Jang; Jiyeon Park; Mark Artz; Yawei Zhang; Jacob C Ricci; Soon Huh; Perry B Johnson; Mi-Hwa Kim; Mison Chun; Young-Taek Oh; O Kyu Noh; Hae-Jin Park Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-08-18 Impact factor: 6.244