A comparison of treatment plan quality between Tri-Co-60 intensity modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for cervical cancer. (August 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Park, Jong Min; Park, So-Yeon; Kim, Jung-in; Kang, Hyun-Cheol; Choi, Chang Heon
• Is Part Of: Physica medica. Volume 40(2017)
• Page Start: 11
• Page End: 16
• Publication Date: 2017-08
• Subjects: Volumetric modulated arc therapy -- Intensity-modulated radiation therapy -- Cervical cancer -- MRI -- Image guided radiotherapy; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Biophysics -- Periodicals; Biophysics -- Periodicals; Imagerie médicale -- Périodiques; Radiothérapie -- Périodiques; Rayons X -- Sécurité -- Mesures -- Périodiques; Physique -- Périodiques; Médecine -- Périodiques; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.06.018
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1120-1797

Abstract

Highlights: Margin reduction capability of MR-IGRT is beneficial for cervical cancer treatment. MR-IGRT could reduce dose to OARs. MR-IGRT could reduce normal tissue irradiations. Abstract: Purpose: To investigate the plan quality of tri-Co-60 intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for cervical cancer. Methods: A total of 20 patients who received postoperative radiotherapy for cervical cancer were selected. For each patient, a tri-Co-60 IMRT plan for which the target volume was the planning target volume (PTV) generated by adding 1 mm isotropic margins from the clinical target volume (CTV) and a VMAT plan for which the target volume was the PTV generated by adding 7 mm and 10 mm margins from the CTV were generated. The tri-Co-60 IMRT plans were generated with the ViewRay™ system while the VMAT plans were generated with 15-MV photon beams from a linear accelerator (prescription dose = 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions). Results: The average volumes of the PTVs and CTVs were 704.9 cc ± 87.8 cc and 271.6 cc ± 51.6 cc, respectively. No noticeable differences in the dose-volumetric parameters for the target volumes were observed between the tri-Co-60 IMRT and VMAT plans. The values of V40Gy for the small bowel and rectal wall, V45Gy of the bladder, and V35Gy of the femoral heads for the VMAT plans were 14.6% ± 7.8%, 54.4% ± 4.2%, 30.0% ± 4.7%, and 8.9% ± 3.3%, respectively. Those of the tri-Co-60 IMRT plans were 2.8% ± 2.1%, 23.0% ± 8.9%, 17.1% ± 6.1%, and 0.3% ± 0.4%, respectively. Conclusions: Owing to the target margin reduction capability, the tri-Co-60 IMRT plans were more favorable than the VMAT plans for cervical cancer.