PURPOSE: To compare helical Tomotherapy (HT), two volumetric-modulated arc techniques and conventional fixed-field intensity modulated techniques (S-IMRT) for head-neck (HN) cancers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eighteen HN patients were considered. Four treatment plans were generated for each patient: HT, S-IMRT optimised with Eclipse treatment planning system and two volumetric techniques using Elekta-Oncentra approach (VMAT) and Varian-RapidArc (RA), using two full arcs. All techniques were optimised to simultaneously deliver 66Gy to PTV1 (GTV and enlarged nodes) and 54Gy to PTV2 (subclinical and electively treated nodes). Comparisons were assessed on several dosimetric parameters and, secondarily, on planned MUs and delivery time. RESULTS: Concerning PTV coverage, significantly better results were found for HT and RA. HT significantly improved the target coverage both compared to S-IMRT and VMAT. No significant differences were found between S-IMRT and volumetric techniques in terms of dose homogeneity. For OARs, all the techniques were able to satisfy all hard constraints; significantly better results were found for HT, especially in the intermediate dose range (15-30 Gy). S-IMRT reached a significantly better OARs sparing with respect to VMAT and RA. No significant differences were found for body mean dose, excepting higher values of V5-V10 for HT. A reduction of planned MUs and delivery treatment time was found with volumetric techniques. CONCLUSIONS: The objectives of satisfying target coverage and sparing of critical structures were reached with all techniques. S-IMRT techniques were found more advantageous compared to RA and VMAT for OARs sparing. HT reached the best overall treatment plan quality.
PURPOSE: To compare helical Tomotherapy (HT), two volumetric-modulated arc techniques and conventional fixed-field intensity modulated techniques (S-IMRT) for head-neck (HN) cancers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eighteen HN patients were considered. Four treatment plans were generated for each patient: HT, S-IMRT optimised with Eclipse treatment planning system and two volumetric techniques using Elekta-Oncentra approach (VMAT) and Varian-RapidArc (RA), using two full arcs. All techniques were optimised to simultaneously deliver 66Gy to PTV1 (GTV and enlarged nodes) and 54Gy to PTV2 (subclinical and electively treated nodes). Comparisons were assessed on several dosimetric parameters and, secondarily, on planned MUs and delivery time. RESULTS: Concerning PTV coverage, significantly better results were found for HT and RA. HT significantly improved the target coverage both compared to S-IMRT and VMAT. No significant differences were found between S-IMRT and volumetric techniques in terms of dose homogeneity. For OARs, all the techniques were able to satisfy all hard constraints; significantly better results were found for HT, especially in the intermediate dose range (15-30 Gy). S-IMRT reached a significantly better OARs sparing with respect to VMAT and RA. No significant differences were found for body mean dose, excepting higher values of V5-V10 for HT. A reduction of planned MUs and delivery treatment time was found with volumetric techniques. CONCLUSIONS: The objectives of satisfying target coverage and sparing of critical structures were reached with all techniques. S-IMRT techniques were found more advantageous compared to RA and VMAT for OARs sparing. HT reached the best overall treatment plan quality.