Premium
SU‐F‐T‐392: Superior Brainstem and Cochlea Sparing with VMAT for Glioblastoma Multiforme
Author(s) -
Briere TM,
McAleer MF,
Levy LB,
Yang JN,
Anderson MD
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4956577
Subject(s) - medicine , nuclear medicine , glioblastoma , radiation therapy , optic chiasm , dosimetry , wilcoxon signed rank test , radiology , mann–whitney u test , ophthalmology , cancer research , optic nerve
Purpose: Volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) can provide similar target coverage and normal tissue sparing as IMRT but with shorter treatment times. At our institution VMAT was adopted for the treatment glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) after a small number of test plans demonstrated its non‐inferiority. In this study, we compare actual clinical treatment plans for a larger cohort of patients treated with either VMAT or IMRT. Methods: 90 GBM patients were included in this study, 45 treated with IMRT and 45 with VMAT. All planning target volumes (PTVs) were prescribed a dose of 50 Gy, with a simultaneous integrated boost to 60 Gy. Most IMRT plans used 5 non‐coplanar beams, while most VMAT plans used 2 coplanar beams. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test or the Wilcoxon‐Mann‐Whitney rank sum test. Included in the analysis were patient and treatment characteristics as well as the doses to the target volumes and organs at risk. Results: Treatment times for the VMAT plans were reduced by 5 minutes compared with IMRT. The PTV coverage was similar, with at least 95% covered for all plans, while the median boost PTV dose differed by 0.1 Gy between the IMRT and VMAT cohorts. The doses to the brain, optic chiasm, optic nerves and eyes were not significantly different. The mean dose to the brainstem, however, was 9.4 Gy less with VMAT (p<0.001). The dose to the ipsilateral and contralateral cochleae were respectively 19.7 and 9.5 Gy less (p<0.001). Conclusion: Comparison of clinical treatment plans for separate IMRT and VMAT cohorts demonstrates that VMAT can save substantial treatment time while providing similar target coverage and superior sparing of the brainstem and cochleae. To our knowledge this is the first study to demonstrate this benefit of VMAT in the management of GBM.