Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Panet‐Raymond, Valerie
• Ansbacher, Will
• Zavgorodni, Sergei
• Bendorffe, Bill
• Nichol, Alan
• Truong, Pauline T.
• Beckham, Wayne
• Vlachaki, Maria

Titel

Coplanar versus noncoplanar intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment planning for fronto‐temporal high‐grade glioma

Ist Teil von

• Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2012-07, Vol.13 (4), p.44-53

Ort / Verlag

United States: John Wiley & Sons, Inc

Erscheinungsjahr

2012

Quelle

Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• The purpose of this study was to compare dosimetric and radiobiological parameters of treatment plans using coplanar and noncoplanar beam arrangements in patients with fronto‐temporal high‐grade glioma (HGG) generated for intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Ten cases of HGG overlapping the optic apparatus were selected. Four separate plans were created for each case: coplanar IMRT, noncoplanar IMRT (ncIMRT), VMAT, and noncoplanar VMAT (ncVMAT). The prescription dose was 60 Gy in 30 fractions. Dose‐volume histograms and equivalent uniform doses (EUD) for planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OARs) were generated. The four techniques resulted in comparable mean, minimum, maximum PTV doses, and PTV EUDs (p≥0.33). The mean PTV dose and EUD averaged for all techniques were 59.98 Gy (Standard Deviation (SD)±0.15) and 59.86 Gy (SD±0.27). Noncoplanar IMRT significantly reduced contralateral anterior globe EUDs (6.7 Gy versus 8.2 Gy, p=0.05), while both ncIMRT and ncVMAT reduced contralateral retina EUDs (16 Gy versus 18.8 Gy, p=0.03). Noncoplanar techniques resulted in lower contralateral temporal lobe dose (22.2 Gy versus 24.7 Gy). Compared to IMRT, VMAT techniques required fewer monitor units (755 vs. 478, p≤0.001) but longer optimization times. Treatment delivery times were 6.1 and 10.5 minutes for coplanar and ncIMRT versus 2.9 and 5.0 minutes for coplanar and ncVMAT. In this study, all techniques achieved comparable target coverage. Superior sparing of contralateral optic structures was seen with ncIMRT. The VMAT techniques reduced treatment delivery duration but prolonged plan optimization times, compared to IMRT techniques. Technique selection should be individualized, based on patient‐specific clinical and dosimetric parameters. PACS number: 87