Open AccessComprehensive dosimetric planning comparison for early‐stage, non‐small cell lung cancer with SABR: fixed‐beam IMRT versus VMAT versus TomoTherapy
Author(s) -
Xhaferllari Ilma,
ElSherif Omar,
Gaede Stewart
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of applied clinical medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.83
H-Index - 48
ISSN - 1526-9914
DOI - 10.1120/jacmp.v17i5.6291
Subject(s) - tomotherapy , sabr volatility model , stage (stratigraphy) , medicine , nuclear medicine , lung cancer , medical physics , radiation therapy , radiology , oncology , mathematics , biology , volatility (finance) , paleontology , stochastic volatility , econometrics
Volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is emerging as a leading technology in treating early‐stage, non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). However, two other modalities capable of delivering intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) include fixed‐beam and helical TomoTherapy (HT). This study aims to provide an extensive dosimetric comparison among these various IMRT techniques for treating early‐stage NSCLC with SABR. Ten early‐stage NSCLC patients were retrospectively optimized using three fixed‐beam techniques via nine to eleven beams (high and low modulation step‐and‐shoot (SS), and sliding window (SW)), two VMAT techniques via two partial arcs (SmartArc (SA) and RapidArc (RA)), and three HT techniques via three different fan beam widths (1 cm, 2.5 cm, and 5 cm) for 80 plans total. Fixed‐beam and VMAT plans were generated using flattening filter‐free beams. SS and SA, HT treatment plans, and SW and RA were optimized using Pinnacle v9.1, Tomoplan v.3.1.1, and Eclipse (Acuros XB v11.3 algorithm), respectively. Dose‐volume histogram statistics, dose conformality, and treatment delivery efficiency were analyzed. VMAT treatment plans achieved significantly lower values for contralateral lungV 5 Gy ( p ≤ 0.05 ) compared to the HT plans, and significantly lower mean lung dose ( p < 0.006 ) compared to HT 5 cm treatment plans. In the comparison between the VMAT techniques, a significant reduction in the total monitor units ( p = 0.05 ) was found in the SA plans, while a significant decrease was observed in the dose falloff parameter,D 2 cm , ( p = 0.05 ), for the RA treatments. The maximum cord dose was significantly reduced ( p = 0.017 ) in grouped RA&SA plans compared to SS. Estimated treatment time was significantly higher for HT and fixed‐beam plans compared to RA&SA ( p < 0.001 ). Although, a significant difference was not observed in the RA vs. SA ( p = 0.393 ). RA&SA outperformed HT in all parameters measured. Despite an increase in dose to the heart and bronchus, this study demonstrates that VMAT is dosimetrically advantageous in treating early‐stage NSCLC with SABR compared to fixed‐beam, while providing significantly shorter treatment times. PACS number(s): 87.55.D, 87.55.dk, 87.55.kd