BACKGROUND/AIM: Traditionally, the radiotherapy of oesophageal cancer has been conformal radiotherapy (CRT). We sought to compare dosimetric parameters of conformal radiotherapy (CRT) with those of two treatment planning systems for hybrid-volumetric modulated arc therapy (h-VMAT) for the treatment of oesophageal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 11 patients, we compared: i) planning target volume coverage, ii) dose to organs at risk, and iii) the dose rate (DR) of the three techniques. We evaluated two treatment planning systems: i) Eclipse and ii) RayStation. RESULTS: The Conformity Index of the CRT plan was significantly higher for the h-VMAT plans, compared to all other parameters. Normal lung tissue volumes receiving >5, 13, or 20 Gy were lower with the RayStation plan compared to Eclipse. The volume of cardiac tissue receiving >40 Gy was highest with the CRT plan. The minimum DR in VMAT was lowest for the RayStation plan (49.5 MU/min). CONCLUSION: The h-VMAT plan using RayStation is the appropriate choice for reducing lung dose. Copyright
BACKGROUND/AIM: Traditionally, the radiotherapy of oesophageal cancer has been conformal radiotherapy (CRT). We sought to compare dosimetric parameters of conformal radiotherapy (CRT) with those of two treatment planning systems for hybrid-volumetric modulated arc therapy (h-VMAT) for the treatment of oesophageal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 11 patients, we compared: i) planning target volume coverage, ii) dose to organs at risk, and iii) the dose rate (DR) of the three techniques. We evaluated two treatment planning systems: i) Eclipse and ii) RayStation. RESULTS: The Conformity Index of the CRT plan was significantly higher for the h-VMAT plans, compared to all other parameters. Normal lung tissue volumes receiving >5, 13, or 20 Gy were lower with the RayStation plan compared to Eclipse. The volume of cardiac tissue receiving >40 Gy was highest with the CRT plan. The minimum DR in VMAT was lowest for the RayStation plan (49.5 MU/min). CONCLUSION: The h-VMAT plan using RayStation is the appropriate choice for reducing lung dose. Copyright
Authors: John M Schallenkamp; Robert C Miller; Debra H Brinkmann; Tyler Foote; Yolanda I Garces Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Shulian Wang; Zhongxing Liao; Xiong Wei; Helen H Liu; Susan L Tucker; Chao-Su Hu; Rodhe Mohan; James D Cox; Ritsuko Komaki Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-09-25 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Susan L Tucker; H Helen Liu; Shulian Wang; Xiong Wei; Zhongxing Liao; Ritsuko Komaki; James D Cox; Radhe Mohan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-09-11 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Oscar S H Chan; Michael C H Lee; Albert W M Hung; Amy T Y Chang; Rebecca M W Yeung; Anne W M Lee Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2011-09-08 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Stephen G Chun; Chen Hu; Hak Choy; Ritsuko U Komaki; Robert D Timmerman; Steven E Schild; Jeffrey A Bogart; Michael C Dobelbower; Walter Bosch; James M Galvin; Vivek S Kavadi; Samir Narayan; Puneeth Iyengar; Clifford G Robinson; Raymond B Wynn; Adam Raben; Mark E Augspurger; Robert M MacRae; Rebecca Paulus; Jeffrey D Bradley Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: H Helen Liu; Xiaochun Wang; Lei Dong; Qiuwen Wu; Zhongxing Liao; Craig W Stevens; Thomas M Guerrero; Ritsuko Komaki; James D Cox; Radhe Mohan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-03-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Freddie Bray; Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rebecca L Siegel; Lindsey A Torre; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 508.702