Dosimetric effect of beam arrangement for intensity-modulated radiation therapy in the treatment of upper thoracic esophageal carcinoma

To evaluate the lung sparing in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for patients with upper thoracic esophageal tumors extending inferiorly to the thorax by different beam arrangement. Overall, 15 patient cases with cancer of upper thoracic esophagus were selected for a retrospective treatment-planning study. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans using 4, 5, and 7 beams (4B, 5B, and 7B) were developed for each patient by direct machine parameter optimization (DMPO). All plans were evaluated with respect to dose volumes to irradiated targets and normal structures, with statistical comparisons made between 4B with 5B and 7B intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans. Differences among plans were evaluated using a two-tailed Friedman test at a statistical significance of p < 0.05. The maximum dose, average dose, and the conformity index (CI) of planning target volume 1 (PTV1) were similar for 3 plans for each case. No significant difference of coverage for planning target volume 1 and maximum dose for spinal cords were observed among 3 plans in present study (p > 0.05). The average V5, V13, V20, mean lung dose, and generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) for the total lung were significantly lower in 4B-plans than those data in 5B-plans and 7B-plans (p < 0.01). Although the average V30 for the total lung were significantly higher in 4B-plans than those in 5B-plans and 7B-plans (p < 0.05). In addition, when comparing with the 4B-plans, the conformity/heterogeneity index of the 5B- and 7B-plans were significantly superior (p < 0.05). The 4B-intensity-modulated radiation therapy plan has advantage to address the specialized problem of lung sparing to low- and intermediate-dose exposure in the thorax when dealing with relative long tumors extended inferiorly to the thoracic esophagus for upper esophageal carcinoma with the cost for less conformity. Studies are needed to compare the superiority of volumetric modulated arc therapy with intensity-modulated radiation therapy technique.