Rachel J Wills1, Gerry Lowe2, Caroline L Jones3, Peter J Hoskin2,4. 1. Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, London, UK. rachelwills@nhs.net. 2. Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, London, UK. 3. Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 4. University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study compares the plan quality of high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for superficial irradiation of large areas of skin with significant curvature in one or more planes. METHODS: A total of 14 patients from two centres previously treated with either HDR-BT or VMAT were retrospectively replanned using the alternative technique. Sites included scalp and lower limbs. Identical computed tomography (CT) scans, clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk (OARs) and prescription were used for both techniques. Conformity, skin surface dose and OAR doses were compared. RESULTS: Conformity index was consistently better with VMAT than HDR-BT (p < 0.01). Maximum skin surface dose (D0.1cc) had a higher mean of 49.6 Gy with HDR-BT compared to 31.4 Gy for VMAT (p < 0.01). Significantly smaller volumes of healthy tissue were irradiated with VMAT than with HDR-BT. This can be seen in brain volumes receiving 10, 20 and 30 Gy EQD2 and in extremities receiving 5 and 10 Gy. When close to the volume, the lens received significantly lower doses with VMAT (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: In this small sample, VMAT gives equal coverage with lower OAR and skin surface doses than HDR-BT for both scalp and extremities. VMAT is a useful technique for treating large, superficial volumes with significant curvature in one or more planes.
PURPOSE: This study compares the plan quality of high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for superficial irradiation of large areas of skin with significant curvature in one or more planes. METHODS: A total of 14 patients from two centres previously treated with either HDR-BT or VMAT were retrospectively replanned using the alternative technique. Sites included scalp and lower limbs. Identical computed tomography (CT) scans, clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk (OARs) and prescription were used for both techniques. Conformity, skin surface dose and OAR doses were compared. RESULTS: Conformity index was consistently better with VMAT than HDR-BT (p < 0.01). Maximum skin surface dose (D0.1cc) had a higher mean of 49.6 Gy with HDR-BT compared to 31.4 Gy for VMAT (p < 0.01). Significantly smaller volumes of healthy tissue were irradiated with VMAT than with HDR-BT. This can be seen in brain volumes receiving 10, 20 and 30 Gy EQD2 and in extremities receiving 5 and 10 Gy. When close to the volume, the lens received significantly lower doses with VMAT (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: In this small sample, VMAT gives equal coverage with lower OAR and skin surface doses than HDR-BT for both scalp and extremities. VMAT is a useful technique for treating large, superficial volumes with significant curvature in one or more planes.
Authors: Anthony J Paravati; Peter G Hawkins; Amanda N Martin; Gina Mansy; Doug A Rahn; Sunil J Advani; Jeremy Hoisak; Irena Dragojevic; Peter J Martin; Charles J Miller; Parag Sanghvi Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-07-17
Authors: Jose L Guinot; Agata Rembielak; Jose Perez-Calatayud; Silvia Rodríguez-Villalba; Janusz Skowronek; Luca Tagliaferri; Benjamin Guix; Victor Gonzalez-Perez; Vincenzo Valentini; György Kovacs Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2018-02-16 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: James L Bedford; Peter J Childs; Vibeke Nordmark Hansen; Alan P Warrington; Ruheena L Mendes; John P Glees Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038