| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2159838 | Radiotherapy and Oncology | 2009 | 7 Pages |
PurposeA treatment planning study was performed to compare volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy against conventional fixed field IMRT.Materials and methodsCT datasets of 10 patients affected by carcinoma of the anal canal were included and five plans were generated for each case: fixed beam IMRT, single (RA1)- and double (RA2)-modulated arcs with the RapidArc technique. Dose prescription was set according to a simultaneous integrated boost strategy to 59.4 Gy to the primary tumour PTVI (at 1.8 Gy/fraction) and to 49.5 Gy to risk area including inguinal nodes, PTVII. Planning objectives for PTV were minimum dose >95%, maximum dose < 107%; for organs at risk (OARs): bladder (mean < 45 Gy, D2% < 56 Gy, D30% < 35 Gy), femurs (D2% < 47 Gy), small bowel (mean < 30 Gy, D2% < 56 Gy). MU and delivery time scored treatment efficiency.ResultsAll techniques fulfilled objectives on maximum dose. Some deviations were observed on minimum dose for PTV. Uniformity (D5–D95) on PTVI resulted 6.6 ± 1.4% for IMRT and ranged from 5.7 ± 0.3% to 8.1 ± 0.8% for RA plans (±1 standard deviation). Conformity index (CI95%) was 1.3 ± 0.1 (IMRT) and 1.4 ± 0.1 (all RA techniques). Bladder: all techniques resulted equivalent above 40 Gy; V30Gy ∼ 57% for the double arcs, ∼61% for RA1 and ∼65% for IMRT. Femurs: maximum dose was of the order of 41–42 Gy for all RA plans and ∼45 Gy for IMRT. Small bowel: all techniques respected planning objectives. The number of computed MU/fraction was 1531 ± 206 (IMRT), 468 ± 95 (RA1), and 545 ± 80 (RA2) leading to differences in treatment time: 9.4 ± 1.7 min for IMRT vs. 1.1 ± 0.0 min for RA1 and 2.6 ± 0.0 min for double arcs.ConclusionRapidArc showed improvements in organs at risk and healthy tissue sparing with uncompromised target coverage when double arcs are applied. Optimal results were also achieved anyway with IMRT plans.
