Comparison between HyperArc and conventional VMAT approach for brain metastases
10.3760/cma.j.cn113030-20201031-00523
- VernacularTitle:HyperArc与VMAT技术脑转移瘤应用比较
- Author:
Bo YANG
1
;
Lang YU
;
Zhiqun WANG
;
Bei WANG
;
Wenbo LI
;
Jie ZHANG
;
Xingliu WANG
;
Hao ZHU
;
Xiaoshen WANG
;
Maoying LAN
;
Feng ZHU
;
Zhen ZHANG
;
Ke HU
;
Fuquan ZHANG
;
Jie QIU
Author Information
1. 中国医学科学院北京协和医学院北京协和医院放疗科 100730
- Keywords:
HyperArc technique;
Volumetric-modulated arc therapy technique;
Brain metastasis/radiotherapy
- From:
Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology
2021;30(9):876-881
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the dosimetric parameters and plan complexity between newly-delicated HyperArc (HA) and conventional volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in the treatment of brain metastases.Methods:For 26 patients with brain metastases, HA, conventional coplanar (Cop) and non-coplanar (Non-cop) VMAT plans with a prescription dose of 9 Gy 3fx or 6 Gy 5fx were generated. The dosimetric parameters for planning target volume (PTV), RTOG conformity index (RTOG CI), Paddick CI, homogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI), maximum dose (D max) of brainstem and dose-volume parameters of brain-PTV(V 2Gy-V 26Gy) were statisticaly compared among these three approaches. In addition, the monitor unit (MU) and the plan complexity parameters (including MCSv and AlPO) were statistically compared. Results:To prevent missed targets during treatment, all plans were established with RTOG CI of greater than 1.1. For Paddick CI, HA provided significantly higher conformity (0.89±0.019) than Non-cop (0.87±0.036, P=0.001) and Cop (0.88±0.017, P=0.003) VMAT. For GI, the fastest dose fall-off was noted in HA (3.35±0.64), followed by conventional Non-cop VMAT of (3.70±0.80), and conventional Cop VMAT of (4.90±1.85)(all P<0.05). For the brainstem sparing, HA plan performed better than Non-cop plan[(604.14±531.61) cGy vs.(682.75±558.22) cGy, P<0.05)]. For normal brain tissue sparing, HA approach showed significant reduction than conventional Cop and Non-cop VMAT (both P<0.05). For MU, HA approach (2 872.60 ± 566.93) was significantly lower than those of Non-cop VMAT (3 771.28 ± 1 022.38, P<0.05) and Cop VMAT (4 494.08 ± 1 323.09, P<0.05). In terms of plan complexity, the MCSv of Cop plan was the lowest, indicating that the complexity was the highest ( P<0.05). The AlPO of HA was significantly higher than that of Non-cop VMAT ( P<0.05), suggesting that the complexity of HA plan was lower ( P<0.05). Conclusion:For the treatment of brain metastases, HA provides better conformity, more rapid dose fall-off, better sparing of brainstem and normal brain tissues and less plan complexity compared with conventional VMAT.
