Jong Min Park1, So-Yeon Park2, Jung-In Kim2, Hyun-Cheol Kang2, Chang Heon Choi3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Center for Convergence Research on Robotics, Advanced Institutes of Convergence Technology, Suwon, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: dm140@naver.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the plan quality of tri-Co-60 intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for cervical cancer. METHODS: A total of 20 patients who received postoperative radiotherapy for cervical cancer were selected. For each patient, a tri-Co-60 IMRT plan for which the target volume was the planning target volume (PTV) generated by adding 1mm isotropic margins from the clinical target volume (CTV) and a VMAT plan for which the target volume was the PTV generated by adding 7mm and 10mm margins from the CTV were generated. The tri-Co-60 IMRT plans were generated with the ViewRay™ system while the VMAT plans were generated with 15-MV photon beams from a linear accelerator (prescription dose=50.4Gy in 28 fractions). RESULTS: The average volumes of the PTVs and CTVs were 704.9cc±87.8cc and 271.6cc±51.6cc, respectively. No noticeable differences in the dose-volumetric parameters for the target volumes were observed between the tri-Co-60 IMRT and VMAT plans. The values of V40Gy for the small bowel and rectal wall, V45Gy of the bladder, and V35Gy of the femoral heads for the VMAT plans were 14.6%±7.8%, 54.4%±4.2%, 30.0%±4.7%, and 8.9%±3.3%, respectively. Those of the tri-Co-60 IMRT plans were 2.8%±2.1%, 23.0%±8.9%, 17.1%±6.1%, and 0.3%±0.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Owing to the target margin reduction capability, the tri-Co-60 IMRT plans were more favorable than the VMAT plans for cervical cancer.
PURPOSE: To investigate the plan quality of tri-Co-60 intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for cervical cancer. METHODS: A total of 20 patients who received postoperative radiotherapy for cervical cancer were selected. For each patient, a tri-Co-60 IMRT plan for which the target volume was the planning target volume (PTV) generated by adding 1mm isotropic margins from the clinical target volume (CTV) and a VMAT plan for which the target volume was the PTV generated by adding 7mm and 10mm margins from the CTV were generated. The tri-Co-60 IMRT plans were generated with the ViewRay™ system while the VMAT plans were generated with 15-MV photon beams from a linear accelerator (prescription dose=50.4Gy in 28 fractions). RESULTS: The average volumes of the PTVs and CTVs were 704.9cc±87.8cc and 271.6cc±51.6cc, respectively. No noticeable differences in the dose-volumetric parameters for the target volumes were observed between the tri-Co-60 IMRT and VMAT plans. The values of V40Gy for the small bowel and rectal wall, V45Gy of the bladder, and V35Gy of the femoral heads for the VMAT plans were 14.6%±7.8%, 54.4%±4.2%, 30.0%±4.7%, and 8.9%±3.3%, respectively. Those of the tri-Co-60 IMRT plans were 2.8%±2.1%, 23.0%±8.9%, 17.1%±6.1%, and 0.3%±0.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Owing to the target margin reduction capability, the tri-Co-60 IMRT plans were more favorable than the VMAT plans for cervical cancer.
Authors: Luca Boldrini; Elisa Placidi; Nicola Dinapoli; Luigi Azario; Francesco Cellini; Mariangela Massaccesi; Silvia Chiesa; Maria Antonietta Gambacorta; Gian Carlo Mattiucci; Danila Piccari; Stefania Teodoli; Marco De Spirito; Vincenzo Valentini Journal: Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-03-31