Tomotherapy as a neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced esophageal cancer might increase bone marrow toxicity in comparison with intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy.

This study compares dosimetric parameters in these following 3 neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) methods in treating locally advanced esophagus cancer: helical tomotherapy (TOMO), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). It is aimed to ascertain the efficient technique that kept high target coverage and availed the dose sparing of bone marrow (BM). This research collected data on 11 patients from October 2014 to June 2017 who received NCRT for pathologically confirmed esophageal cancer. The prescription doses to the planning target volume (PTV) were all given as 60 Gy (2 Gy per fraction, 5 days a week). Three physicists via Varian Eclipse Treatment Planning System and Accuray planning stations redesigned 5 radiotherapy plans (fixed 5-field IMRT, fixed 7-field IMRT, 2-arc VMAT, 3-arc VMAT, and TOMO) for each of the patients. At the end of the planning, we then appraised the dosimetric quality based on the PTV parameters and the doses to organs at risk (OARs). In the study VMAT reached the highest conformity index (CI; 2 arcs VMAT: 0.74 ± 0.10; 3 arcs VMAT: 0.78 ± 0.07; p< 0.05), and IMRT the lowest homogeneity index (HI; fivefields IMRT: 0.12 ± 0.03; sevenfields IMRT: 0.10 ± 0.02; p< 0.05). Besides, 7 fields IMRT (0.10 ± 0.02) achieved superior HI to that of 5 fields IMRT (0.12 ± 0.03, p< 0.01). TOMO (p< 0.05) and VMAT (p< 0.05) were both significantly superior to IMRT in terms of the dose to lung (V5 , V10 , V15 , V20 , and V30 ). These 5 radiation techniques were similar regarding the dose to heart (V5 , V20 , and V30 ), but IMRT (5 fields IMRT: 19.27 ± 5.33; 7 fields IMRT: 20.05 ± 4.19) significantly raised the dose to the V50 of the heart when compared to VMAT (2 arcs VMAT: 16.6 ± 5.68; 3 arcs VMAT: 15.04 ± 5.75; p< 0.05) and TOMO (15.05 ± 4.7, p< 0.05). VMAT reduced the dose to BM (V5 , V10 , V20 , and V30 ) as compared to TOMO (p< 0.05) and IMRT (p< 0.05). The CI of VMAT was the supreme one in those of the techniques in this study, so was the HI of IMRT. VMAT also provided another advantage that it reduced the dose to the BM. TOMO ameliorated the dose sparing of the lung, but the dose that the BM absorbed from TOMO was of some concern about BM toxicity.