AIM: The purpose of this study was to compare 6 treatment planning methods (5-beam coplanar intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), 7-beam coplanar IMRT, 7-beam noncoplanar IMRT, 2 full arc coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), 2 half partial arc coplanar VMAT, and 2 half partial arc noncoplanar VMAT) for high-grade gliomas with planning target volumes (PTVs) overlapping the optic pathway and/or brainstem. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 27 previously-treated patients with high-grade gliomas were replanned for treatment with IMRT5, IMRT7, IMRT7-non, VMAT2f, VMAT2h, and VMAT2h-non. In order to perform a comparative study of the treatment outcomes, 3 tumor localizations (right-sided, left-sided, and central tumors) were selected. Patients were administered a PTV dose of 60 Gy in 30 fractions with a maximum permitted dose of 110%. RESULTS: Comparison of the 3 IMRT plans and 3 VMAT plans was performed for all 27 patients. The median conformity index was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in all IMRT plans compared to all VMAT plans in the case of right sided tumors. Significant differences were also observed between coplanar and noncoplanar plans in IMRT and VMAT in right-sided tumors (p < 0.05). Differences in brainstem mean doses were only found to be significant between coplanar and noncoplanar plans in centrally-located tumors. In right- and left-sided tumors, the VMAT2f plans demonstrated higher values than all IMRT plans in their mean values for radiation doses to the ipsilateral optic nerves, contralateral optic nerves, ipsilateral lens, ipsilateral eye, contralateral lens, contralateral eye, and contralateral optic nerves, as well in the maximums for the optic chiasm and contralateral optic nerves. Significantly faster treatment times were achieved with all VMAT plans compared to IMRT plans. CONCLUSION: IMRT techniques provided better target coverage than VMAT plans. However, VMAT techniques reduced treatment delivery time more than IMRT techniques. Technique selection for tumors located in 3 different localizations should be individualized in accordance with patients' specific parameters.
AIM: The purpose of this study was to compare 6 treatment planning methods (5-beam coplanar intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), 7-beam coplanar IMRT, 7-beam noncoplanar IMRT, 2 full arc coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), 2 half partial arc coplanar VMAT, and 2 half partial arc noncoplanar VMAT) for high-grade gliomas with planning target volumes (PTVs) overlapping the optic pathway and/or brainstem. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 27 previously-treated patients with high-grade gliomas were replanned for treatment with IMRT5, IMRT7, IMRT7-non, VMAT2f, VMAT2h, and VMAT2h-non. In order to perform a comparative study of the treatment outcomes, 3 tumor localizations (right-sided, left-sided, and central tumors) were selected. Patients were administered a PTV dose of 60 Gy in 30 fractions with a maximum permitted dose of 110%. RESULTS: Comparison of the 3 IMRT plans and 3 VMAT plans was performed for all 27 patients. The median conformity index was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in all IMRT plans compared to all VMAT plans in the case of right sided tumors. Significant differences were also observed between coplanar and noncoplanar plans in IMRT and VMAT in right-sided tumors (p < 0.05). Differences in brainstem mean doses were only found to be significant between coplanar and noncoplanar plans in centrally-located tumors. In right- and left-sided tumors, the VMAT2f plans demonstrated higher values than all IMRT plans in their mean values for radiation doses to the ipsilateral optic nerves, contralateral optic nerves, ipsilateral lens, ipsilateral eye, contralateral lens, contralateral eye, and contralateral optic nerves, as well in the maximums for the optic chiasm and contralateral optic nerves. Significantly faster treatment times were achieved with all VMAT plans compared to IMRT plans. CONCLUSION: IMRT techniques provided better target coverage than VMAT plans. However, VMAT techniques reduced treatment delivery time more than IMRT techniques. Technique selection for tumors located in 3 different localizations should be individualized in accordance with patients' specific parameters.