COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

Coplanar VMAT vs. noncoplanar VMAT in the treatment of sinonasal cancer

Ning Zhong-Hua, Jiang Jing-Ting, Li Xiao-Dong, Mu Jin-Ming, Mo Jun-Chong, Jin Jian-Xue, Gao Ming, Li Qi-Lin, Gu Wen-Dong, Chen Lu-Jun, Pei Hong-Lei
Strahlentherapie und Onkologie: Organ der Deutschen Röntgengesellschaft ... [et Al] 2015, 191 (1): 34-42
25293728

BACKGROUND: Previous studies showed that noncoplanar intensity-modulated radiotherapy (NC-IMRT) for sinonasal cancer is superior to coplanar intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is a newly introduced treatment modality, and the performance of noncoplanar VMAT for sinonasal cancer has not been well described to date.

PURPOSE: To compare the dosimetry difference of noncoplanar VMAT (NC-VMAT), coplanar VMAT (co-VMAT), and NC-IMRT for sinonasal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten postoperative patients with sinonasal cancer were randomly selected for planning with NC-VMAT, co-VMAT, and NC-IMRT. Two planning target volumes (PTVs) were contoured representing high-risk and low-risk regions set to receive a median absorbed dose (D50%) of 68 Gy and 59 Gy, respectively. The homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), dose-volume histograms (DVHs), and delivery efficiency were all evaluated.

RESULTS: Both NC-VMAT and co-VMAT showed superior dose homogeneity and conformity in PTVs compared with NC-IMRT. There was no significant difference between NC-VMAT and co-VMAT in PTV coverage. Both VMAT plans provided a better protection for organs at risk (OARs) than NC-IMRT plans, and NC-VMAT showed a small improvement over co-VMAT in sparing of OARs. For peripheral doses, the doses to breast, thyroid, and larynx in the NC-IMRT plans were significantly higher than those in both VMAT plans. Compared to NC-VMAT, co-VMAT significantly reduced peripheral doses. NC-VMAT and co-VMAT reduced the average delivery time by 63.2 and 64.2%, respectively, in comparison with NC-IMRT. No differences in delivery efficiency were observed between the two VMAT plans.

CONCLUSION: Compared to NC-VMAT, co-VMAT showed similar PTV coverage and comparable OAR sparing but significantly reduced peripheral doses and positioning uncertainty. We propose to give priority to coplanar VMAT in the treatment of sinonasal cancer.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
25293728
×

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.

×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"