Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:40:40.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The dosimetric comparison between tomotherapy and RapidArc in normal tissue sparing for nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2019

Pubade Kaewpruk Open the ORCID record for Pubade Kaewpruk [Opens in a new window] ,
Somvilai Chakrabandhu ,
Somsak Wanwilairat Open the ORCID record for Somsak Wanwilairat [Opens in a new window]  and
Wannapha Nobnop Open the ORCID record for Wannapha Nobnop [Opens in a new window]
Pubade Kaewpruk
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Division of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand Graduate School, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
Somvilai Chakrabandhu*
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Division of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
Somsak Wanwilairat
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Division of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
Wannapha Nobnop
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Division of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
*
Author for Correspondence: Somvilai Chakrabandhu, Department of Radiology, Division of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, 110 Intavaroros Rd., Sriphum, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand. Tel: 66 53935456. Fax: 66 53935491. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Purpose:

To compare the dosimetric results regarding the sparing effect on normal tissue between RapidArc (RA) and helical tomotherapy (HT) plans for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients in cases of the equal target dose controls utilising two techniques.

Materials and Methods:

Thirteen NPC patients treated with HT were replanned using the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) for the RA plan. The target dose of the RA plan was optimised equally to the HT plan in terms of target coverage, dose conformity (CI) and dose homogeneity (HI) for assessing the normal tissue sparing between two techniques. All dose–volume parameters monitor units (MUs) and delivery time were also investigated.

Results:

All dosimetric parameter comparisons of organs-at-risk (OARs) between the RA and HT plans were not significantly different for brain stem, spinal cord and cochlea. However, the RA plan showed a significantly lower dose to the left parotid gland. The mean and median dose were significantly lower in the RA plan versus the HT plan by p-value 0·005 and 0·039, respectively. The MUs and delivery time were also significantly lower in the RA plan with a p-value of 0·00.

Conclusions:

With the same planning target volume coverage, homogeneity and conformity, almost all of RA and HT treatment planning met the planning goal for normal tissue sparing. There were no significant differences between the two techniques except in the left parotid gland. The RA plans were superior to HT plans by effectively reducing the MUs and treatment time.

Keywords

Dosimetric comparisonNasopharyngeal CarcinomaTomotherapyTreatment planningRapidArc
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 2020 , pp. 237 - 241
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Mahdavifar, N, Ghoncheh, M, Mohammadian-Hafshejani, A, Khosravi, B, Salehiniya, H. Epidemiology and inequality in the incidence and mortality of nasopharynx cancer in Asia. Osong Public Health Res Perspect 2016; 7 (6): 360–372.10.1016/j.phrp.2016.11.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American Cancer Society. Treating Nasopharyngeal Cancer [Internet]. Available from: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/nasopharyngealcancer/treating/radiation-therapy.html. Accessed on 23rd August 2018.Google Scholar
RTOG 0225. A Phase II Study of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) +/- Chemotherapy for Nasopharynx Cancer. 2005. Available from: www.rtog.org/members/protocols/0225. Accessed on 25th August 2018.Google Scholar
Wu, V W, Choi, B K, Chan, H N, Lam, R, Wong, Y K, Mui, A W, Chiu, G. Is linac-based volumetric modulated arc therapy better than helical tomotherapy in the radiotherapy of nasopharyngeal carcinoma? J Radiat Oncol 2015; 4 (1): 29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teoh, M, Clark, C H, Wood, K, Whitaker, S, Nisbet, A. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: a review of current literature and clinical use in practice. Br J Radiol 2011; 84 (1007): 967–996.10.1259/bjr/22373346CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Varian medical system. VMAT: RapidArc® [internet]. Available from: https://www.varian.com/oncology/treatment-techniques/external-beam-radiation/vmat. Accessed on 5 September 2018.Google Scholar
Mackie, T R. History of tomotherapy. Phys Med Biol 2006; 51 (13): R427–R453.10.1088/0031-9155/51/13/R24CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Prescribing, Recording, and Reporting Photon-Beam Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT). ICRU Report 83. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Zhao, H, He, M, Cheng, Get al.A comparative dosimetric study of left sided breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery treated with VMAT and IMRT. Radiat Oncol 2015; 10: 231. doi: 10.1186/s13014-015-0531-4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, S, Zhou, Q, Shen, L Fet al.Dosimetric comparisons of volumetric modulated arc therapy and tomotherapy for early T-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Biomed Res Int 2018; 2018: 2653497.Google ScholarPubMed
Lu, S H, Cheng, J C, Kuo, S Het al.Volumetric modulated arc therapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a dosimetric comparison with TomoTherapy and step-and-shoot IMRT. Radiother Oncol 2012; 104 (3): 324–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, F K, Yip, C W, Cheung, F C, Leung, A K, Chau, R M, Ngan, R KDosimetric difference amongst 3 techniques: TomoTherapy, sliding-window intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and RapidArc radiotherapy in the treatment of late-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Med Dosim 2014; 39 (1): 44–9.10.1016/j.meddos.2013.09.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yawichai, K, Chitapanarux, I, Wanwilairat, S. Helical tomotherapy optimized planning parameters for nasopharyngeal cancer. J Phys Conf Ser 2016; 694 (1): 012002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogata, T, Nishimura, H, Mayahara, Het al. A Dosimetric Comparison of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) with Unflattened Beams to VMAT with Flattened Beams and Tomotherapy for Head and Neck Cancer. J Nucl Med Radiat Ther 2016; 7: 1–5.10.4172/2155-9619.1000274CrossRefGoogle Scholar