Application of IMAT versus fixed-gantry IMRT in cervical esophageal cancer : A comparison in dosimetry and implementation
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4221.2010.05.013
- VernacularTitle:颈段食管癌固定野调强与旋转调强放疗计划比较研究
- Author:
Jinhu CHEN
;
Yong YIN
;
Tonghai LIU
;
Xiaoling DONG
;
Dongqing WANG
;
Tao SUN
;
Changsheng MA
;
Xiutong LIN
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Esophageal neoplasms/radiotherapy;
Radiotherapy,intensity-modulated;
Radiotherapy,intensity-modulated arc;
Dosimetry
- From:
Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology
2010;19(5):429-433
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare and analyze the characteristics of intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) versus fixed-gantry intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in the treatment of cervical esophageal cancer.Methods Ten patients treated in our radiotherapy center were selected for this study.Based on the identical CT and planning target volume (PTV), two IMAT plans were generated with Eclipse ver8.6 planning system.IMAT1 consisting of a single 359.8° rotation, and IMAT2 consisting of two coplanar 359.8° rotations.PTV were prescribed to 60 Gy in 30 fractions.Planning objectives for PTV,corresponding with the IMRT plans, were V98 larger than 97% and V110 no more than 15%.The maximum dose of spinal-cord was constrained below 45 Gy.One-way ANOVA were applied to dose-volume values for PTV and OAR from DVH.Results There were no significant differences between IMRT and IMAT in PTV D98, V98, CI or total-lung V5, V10, V30, V40, V50 and mean lung dose (all P > 0.05).However, the differences were significant in terms of D2, V110 and HI of PTV, V20 of the total-lung (all P<0.05).On the MU,IMRT = 1174.8 MU,IMAT1 =709.7 MU,and IMAT2 =803.8 MU (F =39.25,P =0.000).On the treatment time,IMRT= 14.9 min,IMAT1 = 1.9 min, and IMAT2 =2.66 min (F=45.14,P=0.000).Conclusions IMAT is equal to IMRT in dosimetric evaluation.Due to much less MU and delivery time,IMAT is an ideal technique in treating patients by reducing the uncomfortable influences which could effect the treatment.However, IMAT1 is slightly inferior to IMAT2.
