4.7 Article

Is a single arc sufficient in volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for complex-shaped target volumes?

期刊

RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY
卷 93, 期 2, 页码 259-265

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2009.08.015

关键词

Step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy; Volumetric-modulated arc therapy; Prostate cancer; Pharyngeal cancer; Cancer of the paranasal sinuses

资金

  1. Philips Radiation Oncology Systems, Fitchburg, WI, USA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To compare step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy (ss-IMRT) with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for complex-shaped target volumes with a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB). Materials and methods: This retrospective planning study was based on 20 patients composed of prostate cancer (n = 5), postoperative (n = 5) or primary (n = 5) radiotherapy for pharyngeal cancer and for cancer of the paranasal sinuses (n = 5): a SIB with two or three dose levels was planned in all patients. For each patient, one ss-IMRT plan with direct-machine-parameter optimization (DMPO) and VMAT plans with one to three arcs (SmartArc technique) were generated in the pinnacle planning system. Results: Single arc VMAT improved target coverage and dose homogeneity in radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Two and three VMAT arcs were required to achieve equivalent results compared to ss-IMRT in postoperative and primary radiotherapy for pharyngeal cancer, respectively. In radiotherapy for cancer of the paranasal sinuses, multiarc VMAT resulted in increased spread of low doses to the lenses and decreased target coverage in the region between the orbits. Conclusions: The complexity of the target volume determined whether single arc VMAT was equivalent to ss-IMRT. Multiple arc VMAT improved results compared to single arc VMAT at cost of increased delivery times, increased monitor unites and increased spread of low doses. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Radiotherapy and Oncology 93 (2009) 259-265

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据