Yaqin Wu1, Biqing Zhu1, Jingjing Han1, Hanzi Xu1, Zhen Gong2, Yongqin Yang1, Jian Huang1, Emei Lu1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210009, China. 2. Department of Gynecology, The Affiliated Obstetrics and Gynaecology Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital, Nanjing 210004, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare the dosimetric characteristics between volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and 9-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (9F-IMRT) for cervical cancer patients with para-aortic lymph node (PALN) metastasis. METHODS: We selected 20 patients who had received extended-field radiotherapy for cervical cancer with PALN metastasis. IMRT and VMAT plans were compared in terms of target, organs at risk (OARs), homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), the number of monitor units (MUs) and treatment time (s). RESULTS: The CI and HI of VMAT plans were superior to those of IMRT plans (P<0.05). As for OARs, the mean maximum doses (Dmean) to the kidneys in the VMAT plans were all lower than those in IMRT plans (P<0.001). V40, V50 of the rectum, and V40 of the bladder in VMAT plans involved fewer doses than IMRT plans (P<0.001). Compared with IMRT plans, VMAT reduced the average number of MUs by 51% and the average treatment time by 31%. CONCLUSIONS: Both VMAT and IMRT plans can satisfy clinical dosimetric demands and protect OARs. VMAT has the best performance on CI and HI and can better protect the OARs. VMAT plans have fewer MUs and improve treatment efficiency. 2019 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: To compare the dosimetric characteristics between volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and 9-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (9F-IMRT) for cervical cancer patients with para-aortic lymph node (PALN) metastasis. METHODS: We selected 20 patients who had received extended-field radiotherapy for cervical cancer with PALN metastasis. IMRT and VMAT plans were compared in terms of target, organs at risk (OARs), homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), the number of monitor units (MUs) and treatment time (s). RESULTS: The CI and HI of VMAT plans were superior to those of IMRT plans (P<0.05). As for OARs, the mean maximum doses (Dmean) to the kidneys in the VMAT plans were all lower than those in IMRT plans (P<0.001). V40, V50 of the rectum, and V40 of the bladder in VMAT plans involved fewer doses than IMRT plans (P<0.001). Compared with IMRT plans, VMAT reduced the average number of MUs by 51% and the average treatment time by 31%. CONCLUSIONS: Both VMAT and IMRT plans can satisfy clinical dosimetric demands and protect OARs. VMAT has the best performance on CI and HI and can better protect the OARs. VMAT plans have fewer MUs and improve treatment efficiency. 2019 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.
Authors: D E Heron; K Gerszten; R N Selvaraj; G C King; D Sonnik; H Gallion; J Comerci; R P Edwards; A Wu; R S Andrade; S Kalnicki Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Brian D Kavanagh; Charlie C Pan; Laura A Dawson; Shiva K Das; X Allen Li; Randall K Ten Haken; Moyed Miften Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: C W Whitney; W Sause; B N Bundy; J H Malfetano; E V Hannigan; W C Fowler; D L Clarke-Pearson; S Y Liao Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Alexandra Taylor; Andrea G Rockall; Rodney H Reznek; Melanie E B Powell Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-09-29 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: O P Erpolat; G Alco; H B Caglar; S Igdem; A Saran; N Dagoglu; I Aslay; Z Ozsaran; S Demirci; E Keven; Y Guney; M Akmansu; D Kilic; E Bayman; D Etiz; N M Mandel Journal: Eur J Gynaecol Oncol Date: 2014 Impact factor: 0.196
Authors: C M van Rij; W D Oughlane-Heemsbergen; A H Ackerstaff; E A Lamers; A J M Balm; C R N Rasch Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2008-12-09 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: David S Lakomy; Juliana Wu; Bhavana V Chapman; Zhiqian Henry Yu; Belinda Lee; Ann H Klopp; Anuja Jhingran; Patricia J Eifel; Lilie L Lin Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-12-25
Authors: Hanzi Xu; Chang Guo; Xiuming Zhang; Yaqin Wu; Biqing Zhu; Emei Lu; Zhihua Sun; Dan He; Fei Deng; Juan Lv; Zhen Gong Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2021-12